2011 (8) TMI 555 - SC - Indian Laws

Wholesale packets - Packet of Packed Commodities such as Candy man, Minto-Fresh etc seized - Held That - Secondary outer packing for transportation or for safety of the goods being transported or delivered cannot be described as a wholesale package within the definition of the expression wholesale package under Rule 2(x) of the Rules..

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the definition of "wholesale package" under Rule 2(x) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court involved the interpretation of whether certain products, including Candy man, Minto-Fresh, Kitchens of India, Badam Halwa, and Ashirvaad Atta, could be classified as a "wholesale package" as defined under Rule 2(x) of the relevant Rules. The dispute arose when the State of Maharashtra challenged a High Court judgment that held these products did not fall under the definition of a wholesale package.

The respondent, a firm engaged in buying and selling various products, had its godown visited by an Inspector of Legal Metrology who seized packages of the mentioned commodities due to non-compliance with labeling requirements under the Rules. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent for violating specific sections and rules. In response, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking to quash the seizure memo and notice.

The High Court, in its order, sided with the respondent, ruling that the packages in question did not meet the criteria of a wholesale package as per Rule 2(x) of the Rules. This decision led the State to file an appeal in the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the Court examined Rule 2(x) which defines a wholesale package and Rule 29 which mandates declarations on wholesale packages. The Court emphasized that for a package to be considered a wholesale package, it should not be a secondary package used solely for protection or convenience during transportation. The Court reviewed the products in question and concurred with the High Court's conclusion that the secondary outer packing did not qualify as a wholesale package under the Rules.

After analyzing the statutory provisions and examining the products presented during arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming that the products in question did not meet the criteria to be classified as wholesale packages under the relevant Rules.