<?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>2009 (4) TMI 204 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48574</link>
    <description>Sugar globules consisting of almost entirely sugar were treated as falling within the exemption entry for &quot;sugar including khandsari and boora&quot; because the essential character of the goods remained sugar. Prior authority on the meaning of sugar was applied to the effect that products containing more than 90% sucrose and no other mixed ingredients continue to be sugar, even if marketed in a different shape or form. The article or end use of the goods did not change their character, so the entry was construed broadly to cover the goods and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2014 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 204 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48574</link>
      <description>Sugar globules consisting of almost entirely sugar were treated as falling within the exemption entry for &quot;sugar including khandsari and boora&quot; because the essential character of the goods remained sugar. Prior authority on the meaning of sugar was applied to the effect that products containing more than 90% sucrose and no other mixed ingredients continue to be sugar, even if marketed in a different shape or form. The article or end use of the goods did not change their character, so the entry was construed broadly to cover the goods and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>