https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280289 Statutory protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act required proof of a purchase from a duly licensed manufacturer and a written warranty in the prescribed form; a mere bill was insufficient, so the defence failed. Marking Exhibit 102 as an exhibit did not by itself prove its execution, genuineness, or contents, and no evidence established that it was issued by the manufacturers. The proviso to Section 14 also depended on proof that the bill, cash memorandum, or invoice was issued by the manufacturer to the vendor, which was absent. The discussion concludes that the foundational bill was not proved and the deeming warranty did not operate. en-us Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:32:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280289 Statutory protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act required proof of a purchase from a duly licensed manufacturer and a written warranty in the prescribed form; a mere bill was insufficient, so the defence failed. Marking Exhibit 102 as an exhibit did not by itself prove its execution, genuineness, or contents, and no evidence established that it was issued by the manufacturers. The proviso to Section 14 also depended on proof that the bill, cash memorandum, or invoice was issued by the manufacturer to the vendor, which was absent. The discussion concludes that the foundational bill was not proved and the deeming warranty did not operate. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280289