<?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>2009 (11) TMI 851 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164615</link>
    <description>Branded potato chips were treated as falling within the specific tariff entry for processed fruits and vegetables, because a specific entry prevails over a residuary entry where the goods reasonably fit the specific description. The presence of a separate entry for savouries sold without a brand name did not require branded potato chips to be classified under the residuary entry. The article also notes that a Commissioner&#039;s clarification binds subordinate assessing authorities, so requiring the assessee to pursue assessment would serve no useful purpose. On that basis, writ intervention remained available and the classification clarification was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354188" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 851 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164615</link>
      <description>Branded potato chips were treated as falling within the specific tariff entry for processed fruits and vegetables, because a specific entry prevails over a residuary entry where the goods reasonably fit the specific description. The presence of a separate entry for savouries sold without a brand name did not require branded potato chips to be classified under the residuary entry. The article also notes that a Commissioner&#039;s clarification binds subordinate assessing authorities, so requiring the assessee to pursue assessment would serve no useful purpose. On that basis, writ intervention remained available and the classification clarification was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>