<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1252 - Kerala High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212131</link>
    <description>A rubber backing activity carried out by a job-worker on polypropaline rubber mats was treated as industrial manufacturing for the concessional tax notification applicable to rubber-based industrial units. Because the unit purchased rubber on its own account and used it as a raw material in the manufacturing process, the resulting rubber-backed mats fell within the notification&#039;s explanation covering goods made using rubber in any form. Job-work status did not change the character of the unit for this purpose, and denying the concession would undermine the object of promoting rubber-based industries. The purchase turnover of rubber used in the work was therefore eligible for the concessional rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2014 09:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1252 - Kerala High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212131</link>
      <description>A rubber backing activity carried out by a job-worker on polypropaline rubber mats was treated as industrial manufacturing for the concessional tax notification applicable to rubber-based industrial units. Because the unit purchased rubber on its own account and used it as a raw material in the manufacturing process, the resulting rubber-backed mats fell within the notification&#039;s explanation covering goods made using rubber in any form. Job-work status did not change the character of the unit for this purpose, and denying the concession would undermine the object of promoting rubber-based industries. The purchase turnover of rubber used in the work was therefore eligible for the concessional rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>