<?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>2010 (11) TMI 1047 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188304</link>
    <description>A prosecution for alleged adulteration of sweetened carbonated water could not rest on an unvalidated analytical method, because the legal scheme required a prescribed and reliable method of analysis for food samples. The Court also treated mere pesticide residue as insufficient to establish adulteration where no prescribed tolerance framework supported criminal liability, and noted that the later tolerance table included sweetened carbonated water with a matching limit. Directors could not be exposed to vicarious criminal liability on bare assertions of office; specific averments that each was in charge of, and responsible for, the company&#039;s business were required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2023 09:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 1047 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188304</link>
      <description>A prosecution for alleged adulteration of sweetened carbonated water could not rest on an unvalidated analytical method, because the legal scheme required a prescribed and reliable method of analysis for food samples. The Court also treated mere pesticide residue as insufficient to establish adulteration where no prescribed tolerance framework supported criminal liability, and noted that the later tolerance table included sweetened carbonated water with a matching limit. Directors could not be exposed to vicarious criminal liability on bare assertions of office; specific averments that each was in charge of, and responsible for, the company&#039;s business were required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>