https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207308 The packaged commodities regime was held applicable to packaged goods once the relevant provisions of the Act were brought into force, and a separate notification for each class of goods was not required. Rule 6(1)(d), requiring disclosure of the month and year of manufacture, was treated as valid because the parent Act's identification and rule-making provisions were read broadly to support consumer protection and product identification. Compounding notices alleging a breach were nevertheless unsustainable because they did not clearly and specifically state the precise violation, and the notices were quashed. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207308 The packaged commodities regime was held applicable to packaged goods once the relevant provisions of the Act were brought into force, and a separate notification for each class of goods was not required. Rule 6(1)(d), requiring disclosure of the month and year of manufacture, was treated as valid because the parent Act's identification and rule-making provisions were read broadly to support consumer protection and product identification. Compounding notices alleging a breach were nevertheless unsustainable because they did not clearly and specifically state the precise violation, and the notices were quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207308