Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 06.01.2015, which rejected their request for sample testing of Erythritol, arguing that the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 do not apply to raw materials used in manufacturing artificial sweeteners. The petitioner contended that Erythritol is a food additive meant for industrial use, not direct consumption, and thus should be exempt from these regulations. However, the respondent maintained that Erythritol, being a food additive, falls under the definition of food as per Section 3(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and must comply with labelling requirements.
2. Compliance of labelling requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:The court examined Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which mandates that no person shall manufacture, distribute, sell, or expose for sale any packaged food products that are not marked and labelled as specified by regulations. The court also referred to Regulation 2.2.2.9 and 2.2.2.10 of the Labelling Regulations, which require the date of manufacture or packing and the 'Best Before' date to be clearly indicated on the label. The petitioner failed to provide these details on the non-removable label, which is mandatory for compliance.
3. Whether Erythritol as a food additive requires labelling:The petitioner argued that Erythritol, being used as a food additive in manufacturing artificial sweeteners, should not be classified as an item for direct consumer needs and thus should be exempt from labelling requirements. However, the court clarified that Erythritol, whether as a food or food additive, is ultimately consumed as food by consumers. Therefore, it falls within the definition of pre-packaged or pre-packed food, making labelling regulations applicable. The court cited Section 3(j) and 3(k) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which define food and food additives, respectively, to support this conclusion.
4. Petitioner's request to affix necessary labels post-import for testing:The petitioner requested permission to affix the necessary labels post-import, arguing that all required details were available in the imported documents. However, the court rejected this request, emphasizing the importance of labelling at the time of import to ascertain the product's shelf life and ensure compliance with safety standards. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition and closing the related miscellaneous petition.
Conclusion:The court concluded that the labelling regulations under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the associated regulations are applicable to Erythritol, a food additive. The petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory labelling requirements, and their request to affix labels post-import was not acceptable. The writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the necessity of strict adherence to food safety and labelling standards.