https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126827 Brand-name life-saving drugs were not excluded from exemption merely because their market names differed from the drugs listed in the notification; the decisive inquiry was whether the branded product was, in substance, the same exempted drug, with the same ingredients and therapeutic value. The use of a different form or packaging did not by itself defeat exemption. The Commissioner could not issue binding directions compelling assessing authorities to deny exemption, because exemption claims had to be decided independently on the evidence. Notices and assessments based on such rigid instructions were therefore unsustainable, and fresh consideration of the exemption claims was required. en-us Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:43:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126827 Brand-name life-saving drugs were not excluded from exemption merely because their market names differed from the drugs listed in the notification; the decisive inquiry was whether the branded product was, in substance, the same exempted drug, with the same ingredients and therapeutic value. The use of a different form or packaging did not by itself defeat exemption. The Commissioner could not issue binding directions compelling assessing authorities to deny exemption, because exemption claims had to be decided independently on the evidence. Notices and assessments based on such rigid instructions were therefore unsustainable, and fresh consideration of the exemption claims was required. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 14 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126827