<?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>2010 (7) TMI 892 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164230</link>
    <description>Conversion of raw tobacco into chewing tobacco (jarda) was held to amount to manufacture because the goods underwent a series of connected processes-drying, sorting, blending, chemical treatment, fusion and further drying-that transformed the raw material into a commercially different product. The statutory definition of manufacture was applied broadly to include processing and treating goods, and the cumulative effect of multiple operations was treated as decisive where the original commodity lost its identity and character. The dealer was therefore entitled to set-off under the relevant rules, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Oct 2014 20:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 892 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164230</link>
      <description>Conversion of raw tobacco into chewing tobacco (jarda) was held to amount to manufacture because the goods underwent a series of connected processes-drying, sorting, blending, chemical treatment, fusion and further drying-that transformed the raw material into a commercially different product. The statutory definition of manufacture was applied broadly to include processing and treating goods, and the cumulative effect of multiple operations was treated as decisive where the original commodity lost its identity and character. The dealer was therefore entitled to set-off under the relevant rules, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>