9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1958, the Board of Revenue has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion: "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that tamarind and tamarind flower are not different commodities?" 2.. The material facts as set out in the statement of the case briefly are as follows: The assessee deals in kirana goods and foodgrains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the form and identity of goods. Aggrieved by this order, the department sought a reference and it is at the instance of the department that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this Court for its opinion. 3.. It was not disputed before us that one of the conditions for claiming exemption was that the assessing authority should be satisfied that there was no change in the form or id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. Pio Food Packers [1980] 46 STC 63 (SC). The question in that case was whether processing of pineapple fruits into pineapple slices for being sold in the sealed cans amounted to consumption of pineapple fruits for the purpose of manufacture. The Supreme Court held that there was no essential difference between pineapple fruit and the canned pineapple slices, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
