TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court mandates retesting at Central Food Laboratory under Food Adulteration Rules; further processing allowed until compliance.</h1> <h3>NK. PROTEINS LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> NK. PROTEINS LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 212 (Guj.) Issues:Challenge to order of Central Food Laboratory on Iodine Value of Cottonseed Oil, Compliance with Food Adulteration Rules, Previous court order for reprocessing and testing at Central Food Laboratory.Analysis:The writ-petitioner, an importer of 'Cottonseed Oil of Edible Grade,' challenged an order by the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, regarding the Iodine Value of the material after refinement. The Laboratory found the Iodine content to be 97, below the prescribed range of 98-112 under the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. However, another laboratory found the Iodine Value to be within the permissible range. The petitioner sought to quash the Central Food Laboratory's order based on the report from the second laboratory.In a previous case involving the same material, a Division Bench of the Court had directed reprocessing of a specific quantity of imported cargo and testing at the Central Food Laboratory. The current judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the previous court order, which mandated testing at the Central Food Laboratory to determine compliance with the standards set by the Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The judgment highlighted that the results from a different laboratory cannot override the findings of the Central Food Laboratory as per the court's specific directive.Acknowledging the petitioner's argument that the intent of the previous court order was to ensure compliance with the prescribed standards, the Court granted the petitioner another opportunity for further reprocessing to meet the required norms. The judgment allowed the petitioner to present the reprocessed sample for testing at the Central Food Laboratory until the material met the specified standards. Until clearance by the Central Food Laboratory, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.) Authority was instructed not to release the goods for human consumption, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the testing process at the designated laboratory.The Court directed the D.R.I. Authority to provide necessary assistance for the further reprocessing of the material within the time frame specified in the previous order. The Special Civil Application was disposed of with the order for further reprocessing and testing at the Central Food Laboratory, without imposing any costs on the parties involved.
TaxTMI 