<?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>2003 (8) TMI 497 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161691</link>
    <description>Refining soyabean oil and til oil by removing impurities and improving edibility did not amount to manufacture under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, because the process did not create a new and distinct commercial commodity with a separate name, character and use. The refined product remained the same oil in improved form and had no independent identity in trade or common parlance. Refusal to renew the eligibility certificate was therefore justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:23:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 497 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161691</link>
      <description>Refining soyabean oil and til oil by removing impurities and improving edibility did not amount to manufacture under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, because the process did not create a new and distinct commercial commodity with a separate name, character and use. The refined product remained the same oil in improved form and had no independent identity in trade or common parlance. Refusal to renew the eligibility certificate was therefore justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>