<?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 (8) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179256</link>
    <description>Packaged goods intended solely for industrial use in manufacturing another food product were held not to be &quot;pre-packaged food&quot; for mandatory labelling purposes because that expression must be read with the parent Act&#039;s consumer-based definition. Goods not meant for direct human consumption or personal consumption fall outside the ingredient-list requirement. On that construction, lactic cultures imported for yoghurt manufacture were treated as food additives rather than consumer food, and the disclosed package particulars were sufficient for regulatory scrutiny. The refusal to issue a no-objection certificate for alleged non-disclosure of ingredients was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned communication was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:30:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179256</link>
      <description>Packaged goods intended solely for industrial use in manufacturing another food product were held not to be &quot;pre-packaged food&quot; for mandatory labelling purposes because that expression must be read with the parent Act&#039;s consumer-based definition. Goods not meant for direct human consumption or personal consumption fall outside the ingredient-list requirement. On that construction, lactic cultures imported for yoghurt manufacture were treated as food additives rather than consumer food, and the disclosed package particulars were sufficient for regulatory scrutiny. The refusal to issue a no-objection certificate for alleged non-disclosure of ingredients was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned communication was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>