<?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>2013 (7) TMI 839 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235681</link>
    <description>Buprenorphine hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, but where it is not included in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules, the general prohibition in Rule 64 does not operate in the same manner for possession and related dealings. The court treated the earlier decisions in Rajinder Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Gupta as relevant to possession and sale for medicinal purposes, not confined to bail matters, and distinguished cases involving export outside India under Sections 23 and 24. On the facts, the conduct did not disclose an offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, and the matter was permitted to proceed under the Drugs and Cosmetics law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:21:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 839 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235681</link>
      <description>Buprenorphine hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, but where it is not included in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules, the general prohibition in Rule 64 does not operate in the same manner for possession and related dealings. The court treated the earlier decisions in Rajinder Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Gupta as relevant to possession and sale for medicinal purposes, not confined to bail matters, and distinguished cases involving export outside India under Sections 23 and 24. On the facts, the conduct did not disclose an offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, and the matter was permitted to proceed under the Drugs and Cosmetics law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>