<?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>1982 (6) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153555</link>
    <description>Mirrors sold for fitting on cycles were treated as cycle accessories because their commercial identity depended on their purpose and use. The commodity was sold as rear-view mirrors meant to be fitted to cycles, not as glassware in its ordinary sense. On that basis, the product fell under entry 38 of the First Schedule as accessories to cycles and not under entry 102 as glass and glassware. The assessee&#039;s classification challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:55:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (6) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153555</link>
      <description>Mirrors sold for fitting on cycles were treated as cycle accessories because their commercial identity depended on their purpose and use. The commodity was sold as rear-view mirrors meant to be fitted to cycles, not as glassware in its ordinary sense. On that basis, the product fell under entry 38 of the First Schedule as accessories to cycles and not under entry 102 as glass and glassware. The assessee&#039;s classification challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>