<?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>2007 (8) TMI 21 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1817</link>
    <description>Toughened safety glass used for windscreens, door screens, side screens and back screens was held to fall within the entry &quot;glass and glass wares including optical glass in all forms&quot; for exemption under Section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Court treated &quot;in all forms&quot; as widening the entry to cover different manifestations of the same glass commodity, and held that the products were not excluded by the later notification. Applying common parlance to tax entries, it found the High Court had wrongly narrowed the notification by ignoring the widening words. The articles were therefore entitled to exemption, the High Court&#039;s view was set aside, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2023 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 21 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1817</link>
      <description>Toughened safety glass used for windscreens, door screens, side screens and back screens was held to fall within the entry &quot;glass and glass wares including optical glass in all forms&quot; for exemption under Section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Court treated &quot;in all forms&quot; as widening the entry to cover different manifestations of the same glass commodity, and held that the products were not excluded by the later notification. Applying common parlance to tax entries, it found the High Court had wrongly narrowed the notification by ignoring the widening words. The articles were therefore entitled to exemption, the High Court&#039;s view was set aside, and the Tribunal&#039;s order was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>