<?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>1961 (2) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200215</link>
    <description>Butter made from curd was held to fall within the statutory definition of butter, because the phrase &quot;prepared exclusively&quot; was given its plain meaning and curd was treated as an intermediate stage in the milk-to-butter process. The Court read the food safety scheme as treating failure to meet the prescribed standard as adulteration by operation of law, and regarded the later insertion of the word &quot;curd&quot; as clarificatory. It also accepted the factual finding that the analysed sample was the same sample taken from the accused, and held that the Public Analyst&#039;s report was not vague or erroneous. The conviction was upheld, while rigorous imprisonment was replaced by a higher fine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2018 16:32:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (2) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200215</link>
      <description>Butter made from curd was held to fall within the statutory definition of butter, because the phrase &quot;prepared exclusively&quot; was given its plain meaning and curd was treated as an intermediate stage in the milk-to-butter process. The Court read the food safety scheme as treating failure to meet the prescribed standard as adulteration by operation of law, and regarded the later insertion of the word &quot;curd&quot; as clarificatory. It also accepted the factual finding that the analysed sample was the same sample taken from the accused, and held that the Public Analyst&#039;s report was not vague or erroneous. The conviction was upheld, while rigorous imprisonment was replaced by a higher fine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>