<?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>1972 (12) TMI 77 - Gujarat High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169684</link>
    <description>Entry 15 of Schedule A, which incorporated the excise definition of &quot;cotton fabrics,&quot; had to be applied by reference to that statutory meaning rather than ordinary commercial description. Rubber beltings made by superimposing rubber on canvas did not satisfy that definition, because the process was not incidental or ancillary to completion of canvas as manufactured goods and the canvas lost its original identity, resulting in a different commercial commodity. Legislative history and later excise exemption notifications could not widen the incorporated definition. The question was answered against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2015 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (12) TMI 77 - Gujarat High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169684</link>
      <description>Entry 15 of Schedule A, which incorporated the excise definition of &quot;cotton fabrics,&quot; had to be applied by reference to that statutory meaning rather than ordinary commercial description. Rubber beltings made by superimposing rubber on canvas did not satisfy that definition, because the process was not incidental or ancillary to completion of canvas as manufactured goods and the canvas lost its original identity, resulting in a different commercial commodity. Legislative history and later excise exemption notifications could not widen the incorporated definition. The question was answered against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>