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>Chewing Tobacco Not a 'Food Product' Under FSS Act; Regulated by CTP Act, Sale Permitted in Kerala.</h1> <h3>Joshy Versus State of Kerala</h3> The court determined that chewing tobacco is not classified as a 'food product' under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), and thus, the ban ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions addressed in this judgment include:Whether 'chewing tobacco' is classified as a 'food product' under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act).Whether the ban imposed by the Kerala Government on gutkha and panmasala containing tobacco or nicotine extends to chewing tobacco.The applicability of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (CTP Act) in regulating the manufacture and sale of chewing tobacco.The legality of the Kerala Government's order under Regulation 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, in prohibiting the sale of chewing tobacco.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Classification of Chewing Tobacco as a Food ProductLegal Framework and Precedents: The FSS Act defines 'food' broadly, including any substance intended for human consumption. Regulation 2.3.4 prohibits the use of tobacco and nicotine as ingredients in food products.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court examined whether chewing tobacco fits the definition of 'food' under the FSS Act. It noted that while the FSS Act includes items intended for human consumption, tobacco is generally not consumed for nourishment or taste.Key Evidence and Findings: The court considered the inclusive nature of the FSS Act's definition of food, but emphasized that tobacco, even with additives, is not typically consumed for nourishment.Application of Law to Facts: The court concluded that chewing tobacco does not qualify as a food product under the FSS Act.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioners argued that chewing tobacco is distinct from gutkha and panmasala, while the respondents maintained it falls under the ban. The court sided with the petitioners.Conclusions: Chewing tobacco is not a food product under the FSS Act, and thus, the ban in Regulation 2.3.4 does not apply.Issue 2: Applicability of the Ban on Chewing TobaccoLegal Framework and Precedents: Regulation 2.3.4 of the FSS Act prohibits the use of tobacco in food products. The Kerala Government's order banned gutkha and panmasala containing tobacco or nicotine.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court analyzed whether the order extends to chewing tobacco. It noted that the order specifically targets gutkha and panmasala, not tobacco products generally.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the order does not explicitly mention chewing tobacco, and its application to such products is not supported by the FSS Act.Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that the ban does not apply to chewing tobacco.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents argued for a broad interpretation of the ban, while the petitioners contended it should be limited to explicitly mentioned products. The court agreed with the petitioners.Conclusions: The ban does not extend to chewing tobacco, as it is not considered a food product under the relevant regulations.Issue 3: Regulation under the CTP ActLegal Framework and Precedents: The CTP Act regulates the manufacture, sale, and distribution of tobacco products, including chewing tobacco.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the CTP Act governs tobacco products and does not classify them as food.Key Evidence and Findings: The court observed that the CTP Act provides a distinct regulatory framework for tobacco products, separate from the FSS Act.Application of Law to Facts: The court affirmed that chewing tobacco is subject to the CTP Act, not the FSS Act.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioners argued for the applicability of the CTP Act, while the respondents sought to apply the FSS Act. The court favored the petitioners' position.Conclusions: Chewing tobacco is regulated under the CTP Act, and not subject to the FSS Act's food product regulations.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes: 'Chewing tobacco or tobacco products are covered by the provisions of C.T.P. Act, and F.S.S. Act has no application to such products.'Core Principles Established: The court established that chewing tobacco is not a food product under the FSS Act and is instead governed by the CTP Act.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court concluded that the Kerala Government's ban on gutkha and panmasala does not extend to chewing tobacco, and the petitioners are entitled to transport and sell chewing tobacco in Kerala, subject to the CTP Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
