<?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>2000 (3) TMI 1059 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160166</link>
    <description>PVC elbows, tees and couplings were held to fall under the plastics entry rather than the entry for water supply and sanitary fittings, because &quot;sanitary fittings&quot; was understood in its popular sense as articles used in lavatories, urinals or bathrooms, or items fixed to a building as part of it or auxiliary to it. Underground pipes for carrying water were treated as outside that description, and the record did not show that the PVC fittings were used as sanitary or water supply fittings. The Tribunal&#039;s factual finding against the Revenue on use was not open to challenge in proceedings under section 41, so the classification in favour of the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:23:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=338869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 1059 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160166</link>
      <description>PVC elbows, tees and couplings were held to fall under the plastics entry rather than the entry for water supply and sanitary fittings, because &quot;sanitary fittings&quot; was understood in its popular sense as articles used in lavatories, urinals or bathrooms, or items fixed to a building as part of it or auxiliary to it. Underground pipes for carrying water were treated as outside that description, and the record did not show that the PVC fittings were used as sanitary or water supply fittings. The Tribunal&#039;s factual finding against the Revenue on use was not open to challenge in proceedings under section 41, so the classification in favour of the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>