<?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>2005 (4) TMI 560 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162849</link>
    <description>Chemically processed nylon yarn retained its essential character as yarn because the treatment only improved strength and did not alter its nomenclature, commercial identity, or classification. The court found no basis to treat the material as shoe material or as an unclassified item; it continued to fall within the entry for all kinds of yarn. The revisional challenge failed, and the assessee&#039;s classification was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2014 14:10:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=348854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 560 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162849</link>
      <description>Chemically processed nylon yarn retained its essential character as yarn because the treatment only improved strength and did not alter its nomenclature, commercial identity, or classification. The court found no basis to treat the material as shoe material or as an unclassified item; it continued to fall within the entry for all kinds of yarn. The revisional challenge failed, and the assessee&#039;s classification was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>