<?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>1992 (3) TMI 363 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287349</link>
    <description>Ayurvedic preparations containing substantial alcohol content were held capable of being subjected to excise control over import, export, transport, possession and sale where the measure targeted misuse as intoxicants. The Court treated the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the excise duty law, inter-State trade control law and municipal law as operating in distinct fields, so overlapping regulation did not exclude the excise regime. The notifications and amended rules were also upheld against objections of lack of competence, excessive delegation, absence of previous publication, arbitrariness under Article 14 and unreasonableness under Article 19(1)(g), because the scheme was supported by a public-health rationale and adequate statutory guidance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:28:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609839" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 363 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287349</link>
      <description>Ayurvedic preparations containing substantial alcohol content were held capable of being subjected to excise control over import, export, transport, possession and sale where the measure targeted misuse as intoxicants. The Court treated the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the excise duty law, inter-State trade control law and municipal law as operating in distinct fields, so overlapping regulation did not exclude the excise regime. The notifications and amended rules were also upheld against objections of lack of competence, excessive delegation, absence of previous publication, arbitrariness under Article 14 and unreasonableness under Article 19(1)(g), because the scheme was supported by a public-health rationale and adequate statutory guidance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>