<?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>2000 (2) TMI 830 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173323</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the assessment of cess under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. The Court determined that the appellant&#039;s activities of manufacturing biscuits, bread, and cake did not constitute processing of animal or vegetable products as categorized under Entry 15 of Schedule I. It clarified that the ingredients used, such as wheat flour and milk powder, did not qualify as vegetable or animal products for the purpose of the said Entry. The Court distinguished between processing and manufacturing, concluding that the appellant&#039;s production process amounted to manufacturing distinct products, not processing animal or vegetable products.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2015 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 830 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173323</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the assessment of cess under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977. The Court determined that the appellant&#039;s activities of manufacturing biscuits, bread, and cake did not constitute processing of animal or vegetable products as categorized under Entry 15 of Schedule I. It clarified that the ingredients used, such as wheat flour and milk powder, did not qualify as vegetable or animal products for the purpose of the said Entry. The Court distinguished between processing and manufacturing, concluding that the appellant&#039;s production process amounted to manufacturing distinct products, not processing animal or vegetable products.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>