<?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>1996 (8) TMI 477 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158651</link>
    <description>Imported goods described as &quot;Matt-Top&quot; and &quot;Icasolv-TL-460&quot; were examined against supplier literature, invoices, industrial licence and technical material to determine whether they fell within the notified category of lacquers under Notification No. 759-F.T. read with the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Tribunal treated the manufacturer&#039;s descriptions and tariff references as supporting lacquer and varnish characterisation, and held that use in the leather industry did not exclude the goods because the notification covered lacquers by identity, not by end-use. It further recognised that paint and lacquer are distinct commodities. The goods were therefore treated as notified lacquers requiring a prior sales tax permit before import, and seizure was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:00:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 477 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158651</link>
      <description>Imported goods described as &quot;Matt-Top&quot; and &quot;Icasolv-TL-460&quot; were examined against supplier literature, invoices, industrial licence and technical material to determine whether they fell within the notified category of lacquers under Notification No. 759-F.T. read with the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Tribunal treated the manufacturer&#039;s descriptions and tariff references as supporting lacquer and varnish characterisation, and held that use in the leather industry did not exclude the goods because the notification covered lacquers by identity, not by end-use. It further recognised that paint and lacquer are distinct commodities. The goods were therefore treated as notified lacquers requiring a prior sales tax permit before import, and seizure was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>