<?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>2015 (8) TMI 637 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262720</link>
    <description>Digital still image video cameras were held not to fall within Entry 41 of Schedule III for the initial period because the entry was read in its ordinary commercial sense and could not be expanded by external tariff classification. Deemed determination under Section 84(6) was unavailable because all statutory conditions had to be strictly met and the assessee had already applied its proposed rate before expiry of the prescribed period. For the later period, Entry 41A was construed purposively to avoid an anomalous and irrational exclusion, so the goods were treated as covered and taxable at the lower rate, with penalty rejected on the basis of bona fide classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 637 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262720</link>
      <description>Digital still image video cameras were held not to fall within Entry 41 of Schedule III for the initial period because the entry was read in its ordinary commercial sense and could not be expanded by external tariff classification. Deemed determination under Section 84(6) was unavailable because all statutory conditions had to be strictly met and the assessee had already applied its proposed rate before expiry of the prescribed period. For the later period, Entry 41A was construed purposively to avoid an anomalous and irrational exclusion, so the goods were treated as covered and taxable at the lower rate, with penalty rejected on the basis of bona fide classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>