TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 and was assessed to sales tax under the Central Act for the year 1969-70. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ught 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 identity of the goods at the time of their sale in the course of inter-Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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, and that though sliced pineapple was a presentation of fruit in a more co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
