Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2009 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (8) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise


Issues Involved: Applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1997 (SWM Act) and Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (SWM Rules) to the petitioner's goods, definition of "commodity in packaged form," applicability of Section 39 of the SWM Act, and interpretation of "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(l) of the SWM Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of SWM Act and SWM Rules:
The petitioner argued that the SWM Act and SWM Rules do not apply to their goods due to the absence of a specific notification under Section 1(3) of the SWM Act. Section 1(3) allows the Central Government to issue notifications to enforce the Act. The court disagreed with the petitioner, stating that Section 1(3) does not require specific notifications for individual goods. A general notification is sufficient to enforce the Act. The court cited judgments from the Bombay High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court, supporting the view that once a general notification is issued, the Act applies to all relevant commodities.

2. Definition of "Commodity in Packaged Form":
The petitioner contended that their goods are not "commodities in packaged form" under Section 2(b) of the SWM Act. Section 2(b) defines "commodity in packaged form" as any commodity packaged in units suitable for sale. The court rejected the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the definition covers all types of packaging and does not require a link between the commodity and packaging. The Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool of India Limited v. Union of India was cited, affirming that any commodity packed in any form is a "commodity in packaged form."

3. Applicability of Section 39 of the SWM Act:
The petitioner argued that Section 39, which mandates specific labeling requirements, does not apply to their goods as they are not sold by weight, measure, or counting. The court rejected this contention, stating that even a single item sold by count or measure falls under Section 39. The provisions of Section 39 must be complied with for any commodity sold in packaged form.

4. Interpretation of "Pre-packed Commodity" under Rule 2(l) of the SWM Rules:
The petitioner argued that their goods do not qualify as "pre-packed commodities" under Rule 2(l) of the SWM Rules. Rule 2(l) defines "pre-packed commodity" as a commodity packaged without the purchaser being present, with a predetermined value that cannot be altered without opening the package. The court rejected the petitioner's argument, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool of India Limited, which clarified that even if a package is opened for testing, it remains a "pre-packed commodity." The court emphasized that the SWM Act and SWM Rules aim to protect consumers and should be interpreted to promote this objective.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the SWM Act and SWM Rules apply to the petitioner's goods. The goods are considered "commodities in packaged form" and "pre-packed commodities," requiring compliance with the labeling and packaging provisions under the SWM Act and SWM Rules.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates