9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommodities Rules provides for compounding amount. In fact, the upper limit of the compounding fees has been provided by Section 48 of the Act itself inasmuch as the proviso states that the compounding amount shall not in any case exceed the maximum amount of the fine which may be imposed under the Act for the offence so compounded. Under Section 36 of the Act, the fine prescribed for the first offence is ₹ 25,000/-, for the second offence ₹ 50,000/- and for the subsequent offence not less than ₹ 50,000/- which may extend to ₹ 1,00,000/- or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both. The compounding fees prescribed as ₹ 25,000/- under Rule 32(3) of the Packaged Commodities Rules is thus in conformity with the Act. Thus, Rule 32(3) of the Packaged Commodities Rules is not in conflict with the parent Act. The conflict, as being contented by the petitioner, is purely imaginary and non-existent and appears to be result of misreading of the provisions. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. - W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) - - - Dated:- 11-12-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the inspection team. However, the respondent No.3 chose to initiate proceedings for compounding under Section 48 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Controller/Assistant Controller on 09.01.2014 for compounding the alleged offence of contravention of provisions of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. 3. In response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the respondent No.3 and sought for compounding on payment of ₹ 2,500/- in terms of Rule 25 of the Delhi Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011. However, the respondent No.3 did not agree and insisted on payment of ₹ 25,000/- towards compounding fees. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Before adverting to the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary for us to notice the relevant statutory provisions. 5. The Legal Metrology Act, 2009 has been enacted by the Parliament to establish and enforce standards of weights and measures, regulate trade and commerce in weights, measures and other goods which are sold or distributed by weight, measure or number and for matters connected therewit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter taking into account the fraction of less than fifty paise to be rounded off to the preceding rupee and fraction of above 50 paise and up to 95 paise to the rounded off to fifty paise; 8. Rule 32 of the Packaged Commodities Rules which provides for penalty for contravention of the Rules may also be reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 32. Penalty for contravention of Rules (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of rules 27 to 31, he shall be punished with fine of four thousand rupees. (2) Whoever contravenes any other provision of these rules, for the contravention of which no punishment has been provided either in the Act or in the rules, he shall be punished with fine of two thousand rupees. 9. It is relevant to note that by Notification dated 06.06.2013, the Packaged Commodities Rules have been amended by inserting sub-Rule (3) to Rule 32 prescribing the sum of compounding amount for various contraventions. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 32, as inserted by amendment dated 06.06.2013, reads as under:- (3) Sum of compounding offences The sum of compounding offences committed under the said Act shall be as specified in the following Table, namely:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. The question that requires consideration is whether the contravention of Rule 6 of the Packaged Commodities Rules is compoundable on payment of compounding fees of ₹ 25,000/- as prescribed under the Packaged Commodities Rules made by the Central Government or on payment of ₹ 2,500/- as prescribed under the State Rules. 13. It is contended in the writ petition that the compounding fees prescribed under Rule 32(3) of the Packaged Commodities Rules is applicable only in case of inter-State trade and commerce in terms of Section 13 of the Act whereas the provisions of the State Rules are applicable in case of intra-State trade and commerce in terms of Section 14 of the Act. It is pleaded by the petitioner that since the petitioner s registered office is situated in Delhi and the goods were displayed in Delhi, it is a case of intra-State commerce and, therefore, the State Rules alone are applicable. It is also contended that the Central Government has exceeded the rule making power conferred on it in having prescribed ₹ 25,000/- as compounding fees under sub-rule (3) of Rule 32 of the Packaged Commodities Rules since the same is in contravention of sub-sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h may extend to one lakh rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both. (2) Whoever manufactures or packs or imports or causes to be manufactured or packed or imported, any pre-packaged commodity, with error in net quantity as may be prescribed shall be punished with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to fifty thousand rupees and for the second and subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with both. 48. Compounding of offences. - (1) Any offence punishable under section 25, sections 27 to 39, sections 45 to 47, or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 52 may, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, be compounded, on payment for credit to the Government of such sum as may be prescribed. (2) The Director or legal metrology officers as may be specially authorised by him in this behalf, may compound offences punishable under section 25, sections 27 to 39, or any rule made under sub-section (3) of section 52. (3) The Controller or legal metrology officer specially authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the compounding fees. It may be added that the Controllers are appointed by the State Government under Section 14 of the Act for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred on them under the Act in relation to intra-State trade and commerce. It is not in dispute that the Act as well as the Packaged Commodities Rules empower both the Director and the Controller to inspect the premises and effect seizure for enforcement of provisions of the Packaged Commodities Rules. Section 48 of the Act further empowers both the Director and Controller to exercise the power of compounding. We have also observed that the Delhi Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules, 2011 made by the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53(2) of the Act prescribed the procedure for verification of the weights and measures, licensing of manufacturer, repairers and dealer of weights and measures and the matters relating to offences and penalties for use of non-standard weight or measures. The said Rules do not contain any provision regarding declarations on pre-packaged commodities much less that penalty for sale of the pre-packag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
