<?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>2009 (4) TMI 820 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153349</link>
    <description>A soap pack containing three separately packed 75 gm units was treated as a multi-piece package under Rule 2(j), because the definition covers two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces intended for retail sale, whether individually or as a whole. Rule 17 governs such packages by requiring declarations of the number of pieces, retail sale price, and, where relevant, a statement that the pieces are not intended for separate retail sale. The package here carried the required declarations, so it complied with Rule 17. The quantity standard in Clause 17(c) of the Third Schedule applied to the individual units, not the aggregate weight of the compliant package, so treating it as a non-standard package was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 820 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153349</link>
      <description>A soap pack containing three separately packed 75 gm units was treated as a multi-piece package under Rule 2(j), because the definition covers two or more individually packaged or labelled pieces intended for retail sale, whether individually or as a whole. Rule 17 governs such packages by requiring declarations of the number of pieces, retail sale price, and, where relevant, a statement that the pieces are not intended for separate retail sale. The package here carried the required declarations, so it complied with Rule 17. The quantity standard in Clause 17(c) of the Third Schedule applied to the individual units, not the aggregate weight of the compliant package, so treating it as a non-standard package was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>