<?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 (9) TMI 326 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157215</link>
    <description>Boroline was classified as a cosmetic under the 1975 sales tax notification because the commodity had to be identified by the language of the relevant notification, its commercial character and common trade use, not by isolated medicinal ingredients. The 1956 notification&#039;s cross-reference to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act did not override the separate wording of the later notification, which expressly covered creams. A drug manufacturing licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was held not conclusive for sales tax classification; it was only one piece of evidence and the taxing authority had to decide the commodity&#039;s character independently.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:34:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (9) TMI 326 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157215</link>
      <description>Boroline was classified as a cosmetic under the 1975 sales tax notification because the commodity had to be identified by the language of the relevant notification, its commercial character and common trade use, not by isolated medicinal ingredients. The 1956 notification&#039;s cross-reference to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act did not override the separate wording of the later notification, which expressly covered creams. A drug manufacturing licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was held not conclusive for sales tax classification; it was only one piece of evidence and the taxing authority had to decide the commodity&#039;s character independently.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>