https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156445 Masticated rubber was held not to become a new and distinct commercial commodity merely because it had undergone processing. Applying the principle that manufacture requires a transformation into an article with a different identity in common parlance, the Court found that mastication only changed the form of rubber and did not create a separate rubber product. As a result, masticated rubber did not fall within item 41 of the Schedule to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and sales of such goods were not taxable under the Act. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:53:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156445 Masticated rubber was held not to become a new and distinct commercial commodity merely because it had undergone processing. Applying the principle that manufacture requires a transformation into an article with a different identity in common parlance, the Court found that mastication only changed the form of rubber and did not create a separate rubber product. As a result, masticated rubber did not fall within item 41 of the Schedule to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, and sales of such goods were not taxable under the Act. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 05 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156445