https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161091 A Xerox machine was treated as a duplicating machine because its ordinary and popular meaning, and its essential function, is to make copies of originals. Entry 12 of the First Schedule, which specifically covers duplicating machines, prevailed over entry 83, a general residual entry for machinery not otherwise mentioned. The argument that any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the lower-tax general entry was rejected because the machine fell clearly within the specific description. Classification was therefore under entry 12 and not entry 83. en-us Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Dec 2013 16:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161091 A Xerox machine was treated as a duplicating machine because its ordinary and popular meaning, and its essential function, is to make copies of originals. Entry 12 of the First Schedule, which specifically covers duplicating machines, prevailed over entry 83, a general residual entry for machinery not otherwise mentioned. The argument that any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the lower-tax general entry was rejected because the machine fell clearly within the specific description. Classification was therefore under entry 12 and not entry 83. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161091