https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751773 Food articles were held misbranded because the labels omitted particulars required by the applicable Rule 32, including the manufacturer or packer's full address and the month and year of manufacture or prepacking, so the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was sustained. The Court also applied the beneficial later regime under the Food Safety and Standards Act, holding that a subsequent lesser penalty may be invoked in pending proceedings; on that basis, the custodial sentence of one appellant was replaced by a fine while the other appellant's fine remained unchanged. The finding of guilt was left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 06:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751773 Food articles were held misbranded because the labels omitted particulars required by the applicable Rule 32, including the manufacturer or packer's full address and the month and year of manufacture or prepacking, so the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was sustained. The Court also applied the beneficial later regime under the Food Safety and Standards Act, holding that a subsequent lesser penalty may be invoked in pending proceedings; on that basis, the custodial sentence of one appellant was replaced by a fine while the other appellant's fine remained unchanged. The finding of guilt was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751773