<?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 (8) TMI 1046 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167952</link>
    <description>Sales tax classification turns on the product&#039;s composition and specific tariff description, not its incidental or alternative use. Fat paste cream was treated as a sweet or other food product and placed within entry 7 of the Third Schedule, because its possible use as an ingredient did not remove it from that entry and the brand-name exclusion did not apply. Choco paste was classified under the cocoa-specific entry for chocolates and other food preparations containing cocoa, since cocoa need not be the dominant ingredient and the product contained cocoa powder. The result was different tax treatment for the two products on separate statutory footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=373081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1046 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167952</link>
      <description>Sales tax classification turns on the product&#039;s composition and specific tariff description, not its incidental or alternative use. Fat paste cream was treated as a sweet or other food product and placed within entry 7 of the Third Schedule, because its possible use as an ingredient did not remove it from that entry and the brand-name exclusion did not apply. Choco paste was classified under the cocoa-specific entry for chocolates and other food preparations containing cocoa, since cocoa need not be the dominant ingredient and the product contained cocoa powder. The result was different tax treatment for the two products on separate statutory footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>