<?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 (9) TMI 566 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158721</link>
    <description>Aegron 11, Aegron 12 and Aegron 22 were treated as refrigeration materials rather than general gases because they were used as refrigerants in industrial and commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. The specific entry for refrigeration goods in the First Schedule prevailed over the general entry for gases. Their classification could not vary according to the different end uses chosen by individual purchasers, since goods with a recognised commercial identity are classified by their nature and specific tariff entry, not by subsequent use. The revision on classification was therefore rejected and the assessment under entry 2 was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 11:41:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 566 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158721</link>
      <description>Aegron 11, Aegron 12 and Aegron 22 were treated as refrigeration materials rather than general gases because they were used as refrigerants in industrial and commercial refrigeration and air-conditioning systems. The specific entry for refrigeration goods in the First Schedule prevailed over the general entry for gases. Their classification could not vary according to the different end uses chosen by individual purchasers, since goods with a recognised commercial identity are classified by their nature and specific tariff entry, not by subsequent use. The revision on classification was therefore rejected and the assessment under entry 2 was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>