<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (4) TMI 208 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151609</link>
    <description>Mixing distilled water with methanol in exact proportions and selling the product as Methimix was treated as manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 because the process produced a commercially different commodity. The court applied a broad reading of manufacture, covering producing, making, altering, treating or adapting goods, but focused on whether the result was a new commercial product. Laboratory testing, a specific aviation use as a power augmentation fluid, and sale under a distinct trade name supported that conclusion. The earlier hand-blending of oil decision was distinguished because no new commercial commodity had been shown there.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:14:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (4) TMI 208 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151609</link>
      <description>Mixing distilled water with methanol in exact proportions and selling the product as Methimix was treated as manufacture under section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 because the process produced a commercially different commodity. The court applied a broad reading of manufacture, covering producing, making, altering, treating or adapting goods, but focused on whether the result was a new commercial product. Laboratory testing, a specific aviation use as a power augmentation fluid, and sale under a distinct trade name supported that conclusion. The earlier hand-blending of oil decision was distinguished because no new commercial commodity had been shown there.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151609</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>