<?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>2018 (2) TMI 1223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355802</link>
    <description>Goods falling within the Eighth Schedule were eligible for concessional tax under Section 3(5) when purchased for installation and use in machinery at a factory site in Tamil Nadu for manufacturing activity, and the beneficial provision was to be construed liberally. The revenue&#039;s reliance on a clarification relating to repairs and reconditioning in a mechanical workshop did not apply to a manufacturer using spares in production, so concessional treatment was upheld. Once that eligibility was established, the allegation of misuse of Form XVII had no basis, and the penalty under Section 23 read with Section 45(2)(e) was unsustainable. The Tribunal&#039;s order granting relief and deleting penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2018 05:56:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355802</link>
      <description>Goods falling within the Eighth Schedule were eligible for concessional tax under Section 3(5) when purchased for installation and use in machinery at a factory site in Tamil Nadu for manufacturing activity, and the beneficial provision was to be construed liberally. The revenue&#039;s reliance on a clarification relating to repairs and reconditioning in a mechanical workshop did not apply to a manufacturer using spares in production, so concessional treatment was upheld. Once that eligibility was established, the allegation of misuse of Form XVII had no basis, and the penalty under Section 23 read with Section 45(2)(e) was unsustainable. The Tribunal&#039;s order granting relief and deleting penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>