<?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>2006 (1) TMI 560 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162071</link>
    <description>Plastic cups and tumblers were treated as containers in their ordinary commercial sense because articles that serve as receptacles fall within the broader classification for containers. The Tribunal&#039;s view was supported by the cited precedent on the meaning of &quot;container&quot;, and the fact that the goods were made of plastic did not take them out of that entry. Classification under entry 19 of the First Schedule was upheld, and the revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:36:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 560 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162071</link>
      <description>Plastic cups and tumblers were treated as containers in their ordinary commercial sense because articles that serve as receptacles fall within the broader classification for containers. The Tribunal&#039;s view was supported by the cited precedent on the meaning of &quot;container&quot;, and the fact that the goods were made of plastic did not take them out of that entry. Classification under entry 19 of the First Schedule was upheld, and the revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>