<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (10) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212013</link>
    <description>Rule 17(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 requires a multi-piece package of individual units not carrying a retail sale price to bear a declaration that the units are not intended for retail sale. Where the individual pieces are not separately packaged or labelled for separate sale, that declaration on the outer package is sufficient and no identical declaration is required on each unit. On the facts, soap bars packed together in a multi-piece wrapper satisfied this requirement through the outer declaration, so seizure for the absence of a declaration on each bar was not justified and the appellate order could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212013</link>
      <description>Rule 17(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 requires a multi-piece package of individual units not carrying a retail sale price to bear a declaration that the units are not intended for retail sale. Where the individual pieces are not separately packaged or labelled for separate sale, that declaration on the outer package is sufficient and no identical declaration is required on each unit. On the facts, soap bars packed together in a multi-piece wrapper satisfied this requirement through the outer declaration, so seizure for the absence of a declaration on each bar was not justified and the appellate order could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>