<?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>1982 (1) TMI 205 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175140</link>
    <description>Turmeric fingers, as primary food in natural form, could not be treated as adulterated solely on proof of insect damage or infestation where the analyst&#039;s report did not say whether the condition was injurious to health or attributable to human agency. After the 1976 amendment, the definition of adulteration had to be read with the provisions on primary food, sub-standard quality, purity, and the proviso protecting natural deterioration beyond human control. Although the statutory standard allowed up to 5 per cent insect-damaged matter and the sample showed 7.7 per cent, the report&#039;s silence on injury to health and human agency meant the charge was not adequately made out under the amended scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 10:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (1) TMI 205 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175140</link>
      <description>Turmeric fingers, as primary food in natural form, could not be treated as adulterated solely on proof of insect damage or infestation where the analyst&#039;s report did not say whether the condition was injurious to health or attributable to human agency. After the 1976 amendment, the definition of adulteration had to be read with the provisions on primary food, sub-standard quality, purity, and the proviso protecting natural deterioration beyond human control. Although the statutory standard allowed up to 5 per cent insect-damaged matter and the sample showed 7.7 per cent, the report&#039;s silence on injury to health and human agency meant the charge was not adequately made out under the amended scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>