<?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>1989 (10) TMI 216 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156015</link>
    <description>Leather sheets made from waste leather cuttings were held not to fall within the notification entry for &quot;hides and skins whether in raw or dressed state&quot; because the manufacturing process crushed, refined, washed and bound the waste into a commercially distinct product, destroying the original fibrous structure and the identity of hide or skin. The phrase was treated as covering only successive stages of the same commodity, namely raw, cured, picked, tanned and dressed forms, and not a product that had lost its character as hide or skin. On common parlance, leather board or leather sheets were not understood as dressed hides or skins, so the classification claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:42:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 216 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156015</link>
      <description>Leather sheets made from waste leather cuttings were held not to fall within the notification entry for &quot;hides and skins whether in raw or dressed state&quot; because the manufacturing process crushed, refined, washed and bound the waste into a commercially distinct product, destroying the original fibrous structure and the identity of hide or skin. The phrase was treated as covering only successive stages of the same commodity, namely raw, cured, picked, tanned and dressed forms, and not a product that had lost its character as hide or skin. On common parlance, leather board or leather sheets were not understood as dressed hides or skins, so the classification claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156015</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>