<?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>2015 (3) TMI 1178 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182258</link>
    <description>The Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 treat &quot;best before&quot; and &quot;expiry date&quot; as distinct concepts: &quot;best before&quot; covers the period of full marketability and quality, while &quot;expiry date&quot; marks the end of the estimated safe period after which the product should not be sold. Where a packaged food displays the same date for both, the label creates a misleading impression that the product remains acceptable until expiry and thereby offends Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. On that basis, the objection to clearance was upheld and the writ petition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1178 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182258</link>
      <description>The Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 treat &quot;best before&quot; and &quot;expiry date&quot; as distinct concepts: &quot;best before&quot; covers the period of full marketability and quality, while &quot;expiry date&quot; marks the end of the estimated safe period after which the product should not be sold. Where a packaged food displays the same date for both, the label creates a misleading impression that the product remains acceptable until expiry and thereby offends Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. On that basis, the objection to clearance was upheld and the writ petition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>