<?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>2016 (9) TMI 410 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332149</link>
    <description>Bitumen emulsion was held to fall within the specific entry for bitumen in Schedule II Part A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act because, on the common parlance, composition and end-use tests, it remained only a processed form of bitumen and did not become a new commodity. The Court also held that the residuary entry applies only where goods do not reasonably fit a specific entry, and that condition was not met. Discussion of manufacture under excise law was treated as non-determinative for sales tax classification, though the cited authorities supported the conclusion that the product remained bitumen in substance. The revision was therefore rightly allowed and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2022 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 410 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332149</link>
      <description>Bitumen emulsion was held to fall within the specific entry for bitumen in Schedule II Part A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act because, on the common parlance, composition and end-use tests, it remained only a processed form of bitumen and did not become a new commodity. The Court also held that the residuary entry applies only where goods do not reasonably fit a specific entry, and that condition was not met. Discussion of manufacture under excise law was treated as non-determinative for sales tax classification, though the cited authorities supported the conclusion that the product remained bitumen in substance. The revision was therefore rightly allowed and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>