https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173485 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's finding of misbranding and violation of Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Court clarified that the mere depiction of vegetables on the label of soyabean oil did not constitute misbranding unless it exaggerated the product's quality. The judgment emphasized the interpretation of the rule in labeling edible oils and fats, highlighting that the images on the label did not indicate an exaggeration of the oil's quality, especially considering its intended use in cooking vegetables. en-us Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173485 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's finding of misbranding and violation of Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Court clarified that the mere depiction of vegetables on the label of soyabean oil did not constitute misbranding unless it exaggerated the product's quality. The judgment emphasized the interpretation of the rule in labeling edible oils and fats, highlighting that the images on the label did not indicate an exaggeration of the oil's quality, especially considering its intended use in cooking vegetables. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173485