9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 553 - HC - Central ExciseRequirement of MRP on the wholesale package which contained 10 retail packages of 20 cigarettes each - packages covered by Rule 29 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 would be outside the purview of retail sale as under that Rule retail prices are not required to be mentioned on the package. - The packages covered by Rule 29 would be outside the purview of the retail sales as under that Rule retail prices are not required to be mentioned on the package. However, again those packages which enjoy the exemption under Rule 34 shall also be outside the scope of Section 4-A of the Act as the Rules do not apply to the said packages. - it is clear that the prosecution in the instant case is misconceived as there was no requirement for the wholesale package in question to mention the maximum retail price. petition is alowed
Issues:
Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 of CrPC regarding contravention of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 (1985 Act) based on inspection report citing violation in a wholesale package not displaying MRP. Analysis: The petition sought the quashing of Complaint No. 528 of 2004 under Section 482 of CrPC concerning a contravention of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1985 (1985 Act) due to a wholesale package not displaying Maximum Retail Price (MRP) as per an inspection report. The inspection on 4th December, 2003 at a shop revealed a wholesale package of Gold Flake cigarettes manufactured by ITC Ltd. not bearing MRP inclusive of all taxes. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the shop proprietor. During proceedings, the accused disclosed ITC Ltd. as the manufacturer, holding them liable. The Special Metropolitan Magistrate (SMM) then summoned ITC Ltd. as an accused based on the accused's statement. The crux of the matter lay in the interpretation of whether a wholesale package was required to display MRP as mandated by the 1976 Act and the 1977 Rules. The petitioner contended that the wholesale package, comprising 10 retail packages of cigarettes, satisfied the requirements of the 1976 Act and the 1977 Rules, emphasizing that a wholesale package need not contain the same information as a retail package. The State, however, argued that the determination of compliance with Rule 29 should be left to the trial court without interference under Section 482 CrPC. The Court analyzed the definitions and requirements under the 1977 Rules for wholesale and retail packages, distinguishing the obligations for each. Referring to the judgment in Jayanti Food Processing Private Ltd., the Court clarified that wholesale packages covered by Rule 29 were not obligated to mention retail prices, unlike retail packages. The judgment highlighted that packages exempt under Rule 34 were outside the scope of retail sales regulations. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution was misconceived as the wholesale package in question was not mandated to display MRP, leading to the quashing of Complaint Case No. 528 of 2004 and all related proceedings against the Petitioner. In conclusion, the petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The judgment provided a clear legal interpretation regarding the display of MRP on wholesale packages, aligning with established legal principles and precedents, ultimately leading to the quashing of the complaint based on the lack of requirement for MRP on the wholesale package in question.
|
