<?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>2011 (7) TMI 1073 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166471</link>
    <description>For goods classification under a taxing notification, the controlling test is the common parlance or commercial understanding of the commodity, not its scientific or dictionary meaning. On that basis, aluminium and iron PP caps used to close bottles from outside were held not to fall within the entry &quot;corks,&quot; because the notification treated cork as distinct from other sealing devices and commercial usage denotes a cork-based stopper. A departmental circular could not override the legal meaning of the entry or the judicial interpretation applied to it. The goods were therefore liable to tax as an unclassified item, and the Tribunal&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 1073 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166471</link>
      <description>For goods classification under a taxing notification, the controlling test is the common parlance or commercial understanding of the commodity, not its scientific or dictionary meaning. On that basis, aluminium and iron PP caps used to close bottles from outside were held not to fall within the entry &quot;corks,&quot; because the notification treated cork as distinct from other sealing devices and commercial usage denotes a cork-based stopper. A departmental circular could not override the legal meaning of the entry or the judicial interpretation applied to it. The goods were therefore liable to tax as an unclassified item, and the Tribunal&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>