<?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>2017 (4) TMI 1379 - RAJASTHAN  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274229</link>
    <description>Goods that reasonably fit a specific schedule entry cannot be shifted to the residuary entry merely because the residuary rate is higher; applying common parlance and the character of the products, Harpic and Lizol were treated as falling within the specific entries for insecticides or pesticides, not Schedule V. Dettol, viewed for its antiseptic and prophylactic character, was classified as a drug or medicine under the specific entry rather than as a residuary item. In a bona fide classification dispute with maintained records and no evidence of suppression or evasion, penalty was not leviable under Section 61, and its deletion was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1379 - RAJASTHAN  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274229</link>
      <description>Goods that reasonably fit a specific schedule entry cannot be shifted to the residuary entry merely because the residuary rate is higher; applying common parlance and the character of the products, Harpic and Lizol were treated as falling within the specific entries for insecticides or pesticides, not Schedule V. Dettol, viewed for its antiseptic and prophylactic character, was classified as a drug or medicine under the specific entry rather than as a residuary item. In a bona fide classification dispute with maintained records and no evidence of suppression or evasion, penalty was not leviable under Section 61, and its deletion was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>