<?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 1058 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183051</link>
    <description>An administrative advisory on product approval under the Food Safety and Standards Act was treated as ineffective unless it was authorised by the parent statute and the subordinate framework. The court further noted that advisories with regulatory effect could not be issued without complying with the mandatory parliamentary laying procedure under the Act. On that basis, the advisory was held to have no force of law and to be beyond the Food Authority&#039;s power.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2016 09:35:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1058 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183051</link>
      <description>An administrative advisory on product approval under the Food Safety and Standards Act was treated as ineffective unless it was authorised by the parent statute and the subordinate framework. The court further noted that advisories with regulatory effect could not be issued without complying with the mandatory parliamentary laying procedure under the Act. On that basis, the advisory was held to have no force of law and to be beyond the Food Authority&#039;s power.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>