2008 (4) TMI 521 - HC - Central Excise

Month and year is affixed by a separate sticker - Rule 2(m) and sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 - Rule 2(m) and 6 would indicate the manner in which the display is to be made - Considering the nature of the said Rule and since violation of such Rule would visit the violator with penal consequences as well, the authorities should have been more specific in clearly bringing out the violation committed by the petitioner since a sticker is permissible unless it is not in conformity in any other manner which should have been specified - Therefore, without advertising to the other details of the matter, on the facts of this case the notices impugned in this petition cannot be sustained for want of clarity and not being specific with regard to the violation - Hence, the notices issued to the petitioner is not sustainable.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Standard Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Act, 1976.
2. Validity of Rule 6(1)(d) of the Standard Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Rules, 1977.
3. Legality of the compounding notices dated 20-1-2005 and 18-2-2005 issued to the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Standard Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Act, 1976:
The petitioner argued that the Act does not apply to their product as no specific notification was issued specifying the classes of goods. They relied on a decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which stated that the Act's provisions do not come into force without such a notification. However, the respondents contended that a notification dated 26-9-1977 brought into force Sections 1, 2, 3, 39, and 83 of the Act, making it applicable to all pre-packed goods. The Court agreed with the respondents, stating that the notification was sufficient and that requiring separate notifications for each class of goods would be impractical and undermine the Act's purpose. The Court favored the interpretation by the Bombay High Court, which upheld the Act's applicability without specific notifications for each class of goods.

2. Validity of Rule 6(1)(d) of the Standard Weights and Measures (Package and Commodities) Rules, 1977:
The petitioner challenged Rule 6(1)(d) as ultra vires, arguing that Section 39 of the Act does not mandate the display of the month and year of manufacture, and thus the rule-making authority exceeded its powers. The respondents argued that Section 83 of the Act grants broad rule-making powers, including matters necessary for consumer protection. The Court found that the phrase "identity of the product" in Section 39 is broad enough to include the month and year of manufacture, which is crucial for consumer information. The Court held that Rule 6(1)(d) is valid and within the scope of the Act, emphasizing the importance of consumer protection and the legislative intent behind the Act.

3. Legality of the Compounding Notices Dated 20-1-2005 and 18-2-2005:
The petitioner contended that the notices were unsustainable as they had complied with the requirements by affixing a sticker with the manufacturing month and year. The Court examined the relevant rules, which allow information to be displayed on a label securely affixed to the package. The notices issued to the petitioner were found to lack clarity and specificity regarding the alleged violation. The Court concluded that the authorities should have provided more detailed and specific information about the violation, and thus the notices could not be sustained.

Final Order:
1. The writ petition was allowed in part, and the compounding notices dated 20-1-2005 and 18-2-2005 were quashed.
2. The challenge to the validity of Rule 6(1)(d) was rejected, and the rule was upheld as valid.
3. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →