<?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 (10) TMI 447 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158885</link>
    <description>Plant and machinery, including laboratory equipment, water treatment plant and waste water pollution equipment, are not &quot;incidental goods&quot; under section 2(bb) of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976. The provision applies to goods used in the manufacture or other specified activity, not to goods that merely enable the activity or constitute the plant and machinery through which production begins. Incidental goods are auxiliary or subordinate items used in the manufacturing process. On the facts noted, the assessee discharged the burden of showing that the equipment did not fall within the charging provision, so entry tax was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 447 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158885</link>
      <description>Plant and machinery, including laboratory equipment, water treatment plant and waste water pollution equipment, are not &quot;incidental goods&quot; under section 2(bb) of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976. The provision applies to goods used in the manufacture or other specified activity, not to goods that merely enable the activity or constitute the plant and machinery through which production begins. Incidental goods are auxiliary or subordinate items used in the manufacturing process. On the facts noted, the assessee discharged the burden of showing that the equipment did not fall within the charging provision, so entry tax was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>