9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 922 - SC - Indian Lawswhether the sun glasses can be considered pre-packed commodity under Rule 2(l) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 - It is the grievance of the respondent that in spite of proper explanation the Inspector/Appellant No. 2 seized the sun glasses for allegedly not declaring name and address of the manufacturer/month and year of manufacturing which is in violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules - Court in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (2007 -TMI - 2207 - Supreme Court of India) - Held that the question which fell for consideration relevant provisions from the Act and the Rules discussion as to the applicability and the ultimate conclusion in para 9 namely whatever be the situation it is clear that a refrigerator is a packaged commodity and thus is covered under the Act and the Rules - Matter is directed to place all these appeals before Hon ble the Chief Justice of India for listing before a Larger Bench
Issues Involved:
1. Definition and scope of "commodity in packaged form" under Section 2(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. 2. Whether sun glasses qualify as "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(l) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. 3. Applicability of the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Union of India to the present case. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Definition and Scope of "Commodity in Packaged Form" The principal question in these appeals revolves around the interpretation of the expression "commodity in packaged form" under Section 2(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The definition provided in the Act states: - "Commodity in packaged form" means a commodity packaged in any bottle, tin, wrapper, or otherwise, in units suitable for sale, whether wholesale or retail. Issue 2: Whether Sun Glasses Qualify as "Pre-packed Commodity" The specific question in Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 2010 is whether sun glasses can be considered a "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(l) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The definition provided in the Rules states: - "Pre-packed commodity" means a commodity placed in a package without the purchaser being present, so that the commodity has a pre-determined value and includes those commodities which could be taken out of the package for testing or examining or inspecting the commodity. The respondent, engaged in trading sun glasses, argued that sun glasses do not qualify as "pre-packed commodity" because they are often tested by customers for suitability before purchase. The High Court agreed, stating that sun glasses, whether in a frame or glass, do not meet the definition of "pre-packed commodity" as the value does not alter nor does the product undergo a perceptive modification when the package is opened. Issue 3: Applicability of the Precedent Set by Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Union of India The appellant-State relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Union of India, where the Court held that refrigerators sold in polythene covers, thermocol, and hardboard cartons are "pre-packed commodities." The appellant argued that the same rationale should apply to sun glasses and other products like Titan watches, fixed wireless phones, electrical goods, home appliances, consumer electronics, and Samsung Microwave Oven. However, the respondent contended that the Whirlpool case was decided in the context of the Central Excise Act and did not consider the specific provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. The respondent also argued that the judgment in Whirlpool was sub silentio regarding Section 2(v) of the Act and therefore does not serve as a binding precedent. Conclusion After examining the definitions and arguments, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation that sun glasses are not "pre-packed commodities" within the meaning of Rule 2(l) of the Rules. The Court also noted that the Whirlpool decision, although relevant, was made in a different context and did not fully address the specific issues raised in these appeals. Consequently, the Court directed that the matter be referred to a Larger Bench for further consideration. Directive The Supreme Court directed the Registry to place all these appeals before the Chief Justice of India for listing before a Larger Bench, indicating the complexity and significance of the issues involved.
|
