<?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>1984 (11) TMI 295 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154289</link>
    <description>Classification of &quot;Jai Kajal&quot; under the Bombay Sales Tax Act depended on its primary use in common parlance. Cosmetics covered products primarily used for beautification, whereas material showing that this kajal, containing camphor and borneol, had therapeutic use for eye health and vision supported medicinal rather than cosmetic classification. The relevant inquiry was confined to the commonly attributed use of this particular product, not the scientific validity of therapeutic claims or the nature of other kajal varieties. &quot;Jai Kajal&quot; therefore fell outside the cosmetics entry and was classifiable under the residuary entry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:53:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 295 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154289</link>
      <description>Classification of &quot;Jai Kajal&quot; under the Bombay Sales Tax Act depended on its primary use in common parlance. Cosmetics covered products primarily used for beautification, whereas material showing that this kajal, containing camphor and borneol, had therapeutic use for eye health and vision supported medicinal rather than cosmetic classification. The relevant inquiry was confined to the commonly attributed use of this particular product, not the scientific validity of therapeutic claims or the nature of other kajal varieties. &quot;Jai Kajal&quot; therefore fell outside the cosmetics entry and was classifiable under the residuary entry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>