<?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 (8) TMI 480 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159405</link>
    <description>Converting used waste lubricating oil into reusable oil did not amount to manufacture or refining under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 because the process only removed impurities and restored usability without creating a new and distinct commercial commodity. The decisive test was whether processing produced a different article recognised in trade by a changed name, character, or use; where the commodity retains its substantial identity, manufacture is not established. On the stated facts, the processed oil remained lubricating oil and no new commercial product came into existence, so resale treatment was not denied and the dealer remained entitled to the resale benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Nov 2013 13:31:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 480 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159405</link>
      <description>Converting used waste lubricating oil into reusable oil did not amount to manufacture or refining under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 because the process only removed impurities and restored usability without creating a new and distinct commercial commodity. The decisive test was whether processing produced a different article recognised in trade by a changed name, character, or use; where the commodity retains its substantial identity, manufacture is not established. On the stated facts, the processed oil remained lubricating oil and no new commercial product came into existence, so resale treatment was not denied and the dealer remained entitled to the resale benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>