https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380065 Electronic nicotine delivery systems were found, prima facie, not to fall within the definition of "drug" under Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, because they were not shown to be therapeutic devices, medicines, or substances having medicinal value. The materials before the Court, including the view of the Drugs Consultative Committee, supported the conclusion that e-cigarettes were outside the statutory definition. On that basis, the respondent was held to lack jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication and circular, and both were stayed until the next date of hearing. en-us Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380065 Electronic nicotine delivery systems were found, prima facie, not to fall within the definition of "drug" under Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, because they were not shown to be therapeutic devices, medicines, or substances having medicinal value. The materials before the Court, including the view of the Drugs Consultative Committee, supported the conclusion that e-cigarettes were outside the statutory definition. On that basis, the respondent was held to lack jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication and circular, and both were stayed until the next date of hearing. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380065