https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279623 Prosecution based on standards for skimmed milk powder failed because the sampled article was instant dairy whitener, not the product described in the analyst's comparison. The packing and seizure memo showed a proprietary food containing partly skimmed milk powder and other ingredients, and no prescribed standard existed for that article under the food rules. Rule 37-A(2)(b) treated proprietary food as food not standardised under the Rules, so the standards for another article could not be applied. The proceedings were therefore held not legally maintainable and were quashed. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:23:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279623 Prosecution based on standards for skimmed milk powder failed because the sampled article was instant dairy whitener, not the product described in the analyst's comparison. The packing and seizure memo showed a proprietary food containing partly skimmed milk powder and other ingredients, and no prescribed standard existed for that article under the food rules. Rule 37-A(2)(b) treated proprietary food as food not standardised under the Rules, so the standards for another article could not be applied. The proceedings were therefore held not legally maintainable and were quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279623