Search Results for "Common parlance test"

80 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 80 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Tax Classification Appeal -- 'Appellants Product' Held as Fruit Drink Under UPVAT Act -- Appellants Succeeds Against Commercial Tax Commissioner

The Supreme Court allowed appeals filed by Appellants challenging the classification of their product under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 200...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Classification of Nescafe Premix as Coffee Under Entry 3 of Schedule C Part II of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Product 'Coffee and Instant Drinks Nescafe Premix' Held Not Covered by Entry 18(2) (Beverages) Based on Common Parlance Test and Predominant Ingredient.

The case involves a reference under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arising from a dispute between the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mahara...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision That Ice Cream Is Not 'Sweet and Sweetmeats' Under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Ice cream is a distinct commodity not covered by Notification Entry 374 for reduced tax rate under Schedule Entry C-II-35(1).

The case concerns M/s. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd., a registered dealer and manufacturer of ice cream under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The G...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Canned Pineapple Slices and Fruit Cocktail Preserved in Sugar Syrup Are Not Fresh Fruits Under Entry A-23 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Goods subjected to processing and preservation lose their character as fresh fruits and are taxable under the residuary entry.

The case concerns a reference under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, arising from a dispute between the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal, Classifies Car Matting as Carpet Under Chapter 57 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. HSN Explanatory Notes and Specific Description Principle Applied to Hold That Car Matting Is More Specifically Described as Carpet Than as Motor Vehicle Accessory.

The case involved two appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III against a common decision of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate...