<?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>2014 (3) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244656</link>
    <description>A notified drug price under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order was construed as becoming operative on notification, with the fifteen-day period treated only as a short adjustment window for unsold stock and business arrangements. It was not read as permission to sell pre-notification stock at the old price, because the scheme was designed to secure the consumer benefit of the notified price and avoid dual pricing in the distribution chain. The 1979 departmental circular and the concept of an effective batch number were treated as subordinate administrative matters and could not override later price-control orders or justify continued sale at the earlier price.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:36:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347818" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 113 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244656</link>
      <description>A notified drug price under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order was construed as becoming operative on notification, with the fifteen-day period treated only as a short adjustment window for unsold stock and business arrangements. It was not read as permission to sell pre-notification stock at the old price, because the scheme was designed to secure the consumer benefit of the notified price and avoid dual pricing in the distribution chain. The 1979 departmental circular and the concept of an effective batch number were treated as subordinate administrative matters and could not override later price-control orders or justify continued sale at the earlier price.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244656</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>