<?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 (1) TMI 679 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161720</link>
    <description>Surgical cotton obtained from ordinary cotton was held to be a commercially distinct commodity because the processing-cleansing, chemical treatment, bleaching, drying, carding, rolling and packing-substantially transformed the original material into a product with a separate market identity and medical utility. Applying the commercial parlance test and the test of emergence of a new and distinct commodity, the Court found that the original cotton was consumed in the process in a meaningful sense and that the entry for cotton in its unmanufactured state did not cover the finished product. The product was therefore treated as manufactured and taxable as a separate commodity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:49:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 679 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161720</link>
      <description>Surgical cotton obtained from ordinary cotton was held to be a commercially distinct commodity because the processing-cleansing, chemical treatment, bleaching, drying, carding, rolling and packing-substantially transformed the original material into a product with a separate market identity and medical utility. Applying the commercial parlance test and the test of emergence of a new and distinct commodity, the Court found that the original cotton was consumed in the process in a meaningful sense and that the entry for cotton in its unmanufactured state did not cover the finished product. The product was therefore treated as manufactured and taxable as a separate commodity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>