<?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>1992 (2) TMI 353 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157196</link>
    <description>Potentisation of homeopathic medicines was treated as manufacture because the process altered the medicinal commodity and produced a commercially distinct product on the record, including the dealer&#039;s own statements, licence and registration materials. On that basis, the second unit at Uttarpara was regarded as an expansion or addition of the existing industrial unit, bringing it within the notification&#039;s prohibition on eligibility for the tax-holiday benefit. The review was also held maintainable because the earlier judgment had omitted a fundamental issue apparent from the record, amounting to a mistake apparent from the record and justifying recall under the Tribunal Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:37:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174221" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 353 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157196</link>
      <description>Potentisation of homeopathic medicines was treated as manufacture because the process altered the medicinal commodity and produced a commercially distinct product on the record, including the dealer&#039;s own statements, licence and registration materials. On that basis, the second unit at Uttarpara was regarded as an expansion or addition of the existing industrial unit, bringing it within the notification&#039;s prohibition on eligibility for the tax-holiday benefit. The review was also held maintainable because the earlier judgment had omitted a fundamental issue apparent from the record, amounting to a mistake apparent from the record and justifying recall under the Tribunal Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>