<?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>2007 (11) TMI 573 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163647</link>
    <description>Production of soft drinks by purification of water and sugar, treatment of carbon dioxide, blending, filling, bottling and sealing was treated as manufacture because it resulted in a commercially different product, and the notification&#039;s exclusion was limited to minor processes such as packing, polishing and cleaning. Under the exemption scheme, the Director&#039;s eligibility certificate did not finally determine entitlement; the taxing authority could independently examine whether exemption was available. The claimant also failed to prove effective steps before the cut-off date by acquiring or firmly ordering the full plant and machinery required. The activity qualified as manufacture, but the exemption claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 573 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163647</link>
      <description>Production of soft drinks by purification of water and sugar, treatment of carbon dioxide, blending, filling, bottling and sealing was treated as manufacture because it resulted in a commercially different product, and the notification&#039;s exclusion was limited to minor processes such as packing, polishing and cleaning. Under the exemption scheme, the Director&#039;s eligibility certificate did not finally determine entitlement; the taxing authority could independently examine whether exemption was available. The claimant also failed to prove effective steps before the cut-off date by acquiring or firmly ordering the full plant and machinery required. The activity qualified as manufacture, but the exemption claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>