https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404491 In a classification dispute over bicycle items, the threshold question is whether the goods are bicycle parts; only if they are not, can the enquiry move to another scheduled or residuary entry. The Tribunal erred by treating the items as accessories without first determining their true classification, especially because no separate taxing entry for bicycle accessories existed under the Act. Evidence such as certificates, tender specifications, manufacturers' price lists and consumer understanding was relevant to the common parlance test and could not be ignored as extraneous. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication on the available evidence. en-us Wed, 17 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:44:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404491 In a classification dispute over bicycle items, the threshold question is whether the goods are bicycle parts; only if they are not, can the enquiry move to another scheduled or residuary entry. The Tribunal erred by treating the items as accessories without first determining their true classification, especially because no separate taxing entry for bicycle accessories existed under the Act. Evidence such as certificates, tender specifications, manufacturers' price lists and consumer understanding was relevant to the common parlance test and could not be ignored as extraneous. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh adjudication on the available evidence. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404491