2008 (2) TMI 813 - HC - Central Excise

Seizure - Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 - Dates, repacking of dates - Name of manufacturer, absence of, on packing - Dates are fruits grown on trees and are natures bounty.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure of goods under Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Rules made thereunder.

Analysis:
The petitioner, involved in processing and selling seedless dates, challenged the seizure of its products for alleged violation of the Act and Rules due to missing manufacturer details on the packaging. The petitioner argued that the Act and Rules did not apply to their product as it was not a 'packaged commodity' under the definitions. However, the respondents contended that since the petitioner processes the dates, it constitutes a 'manufacturing process' requiring manufacturer details on the packaging. The respondents also cited a notification covering fruits under the Rules, refuting the petitioner's claim of non-applicability.

The main contention revolved around the absence of a specific notification covering dates under the Act and Rules. The petitioner relied on a precedent to argue that without such notifications, the Act and Rules cannot be enforced. On the other hand, the respondents argued that the Act and Rules were in force for fruits, including dates, based on the notification issued. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules regarding declarations on packaging, manufacturer details, and compliance requirements for packaged commodities.

The court examined the seized products' labels, which included necessary details like manufacturer name, address, net weight, and price. It was noted that the petitioner's labeling practices were compliant with the Rules, especially regarding fruits as per the Fifth Schedule. As the petitioner was repacking dates and providing necessary information on the packaging, the court found no violation of the Act or Rules. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the seizure and directing the release of the seized articles to the petitioner or its agent.

Additionally, the court found the seizure to be potentially motivated by an ulterior motive, attributing the costs of the petition to the officer responsible for the seizure in his individual capacity. The writ petition was allowed with costs to be borne by the seizing officer personally, highlighting potential misconduct in the seizure process.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the legal intricacies of applying the Standards of Weights and Measures Act to packaged commodities, specifically focusing on the case of seedless dates processed and sold by the petitioner. The court's detailed analysis of the Act, Rules, and labeling requirements led to the quashing of the seizure and highlighted accountability for potential misuse of legal provisions.