<?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 (10) TMI 217 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264942</link>
    <description>Electrical wires, PVC power electrical cables and other electrical cables with 85% copper content were treated as products of copper because copper was their dominant and essential component. On that basis, the Rajasthan HC held that the exemption notification dated 6 March 1991 applied where copper purchased by a registered dealer was used as raw material in manufacturing another product of copper within Rajasthan, subject to the prescribed conditions. As no illegality or perversity was shown in the Tax Board&#039;s factual findings, the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate and the demand for additional tax and interest could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2015 16:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 217 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264942</link>
      <description>Electrical wires, PVC power electrical cables and other electrical cables with 85% copper content were treated as products of copper because copper was their dominant and essential component. On that basis, the Rajasthan HC held that the exemption notification dated 6 March 1991 applied where copper purchased by a registered dealer was used as raw material in manufacturing another product of copper within Rajasthan, subject to the prescribed conditions. As no illegality or perversity was shown in the Tax Board&#039;s factual findings, the assessee was entitled to the concessional rate and the demand for additional tax and interest could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>