<?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>2017 (11) TMI 1833 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281395</link>
    <description>Added monosodium glutamate must be affirmatively shown to have been introduced from an outside source before a food product can be treated as misbranded under the relevant declaration rule; a positive laboratory result alone is insufficient if it does not establish deliberate addition during manufacture. The material also confirms that, after amalgamation, criminal liability for an alleged pre-merger offence of the transferor company cannot be fastened on the transferee company merely because the merger occurred. On the stated reasoning, the complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2019 21:52:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1833 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281395</link>
      <description>Added monosodium glutamate must be affirmatively shown to have been introduced from an outside source before a food product can be treated as misbranded under the relevant declaration rule; a positive laboratory result alone is insufficient if it does not establish deliberate addition during manufacture. The material also confirms that, after amalgamation, criminal liability for an alleged pre-merger offence of the transferor company cannot be fastened on the transferee company merely because the merger occurred. On the stated reasoning, the complaint and further proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>