<?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>1997 (3) TMI 582 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159118</link>
    <description>Raw hides and skins that were processed only for preservation before export retained their essential identity and remained covered by section 14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The tribunal treated the phrase &quot;hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state&quot; as extending through relevant stages of processing so long as the commodity&#039;s essential character was unchanged, and relied on contemporaneous administrative interpretation as a guide to meaning. On the facts, the department failed to show that the exported goods had become a different commodity from the one purchased, so the assessee remained entitled to the export-related benefit under section 5(3).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:44:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 582 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159118</link>
      <description>Raw hides and skins that were processed only for preservation before export retained their essential identity and remained covered by section 14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The tribunal treated the phrase &quot;hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state&quot; as extending through relevant stages of processing so long as the commodity&#039;s essential character was unchanged, and relied on contemporaneous administrative interpretation as a guide to meaning. On the facts, the department failed to show that the exported goods had become a different commodity from the one purchased, so the assessee remained entitled to the export-related benefit under section 5(3).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159118</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>