https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342529 Hydraulic door closers were held not to fall within Entry 92 of Schedule IV covering door fittings, because the entry lists items such as hinges, handles, stoppers, springs, magic eyes, trolley wheels, pulleys and holdfasts but does not include a hydraulic door closer. Applying the common parlance test, the Court found that such goods would be understood as a separate automatic mechanical device that slows the closing of a door, rather than an ordinary fitting of the same kind as those specified in the entry. The goods were therefore correctly classified under the residuary entry in Schedule V, and the assessee's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342529 Hydraulic door closers were held not to fall within Entry 92 of Schedule IV covering door fittings, because the entry lists items such as hinges, handles, stoppers, springs, magic eyes, trolley wheels, pulleys and holdfasts but does not include a hydraulic door closer. Applying the common parlance test, the Court found that such goods would be understood as a separate automatic mechanical device that slows the closing of a door, rather than an ordinary fitting of the same kind as those specified in the entry. The goods were therefore correctly classified under the residuary entry in Schedule V, and the assessee's challenge failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342529