DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (VIGILANCE)versusM/S HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED
2016 INSC 47830 June 2016Dismissed
The appellant, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, challenged the exemption granted to Mis Hindustan Lever Ltd under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, on the ground that the company fixed a uniform maximum retail price (MRP) for tea packets that were marked "inclusive of all taxes" despite some units being tax‑ex…
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusSUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA
2011 INSC 61526 August 2011Matter referred to larger bench
The State of Maharashtra appealed against a Bombay High Court order that quashed a seizure of sunglasses on the ground that they were not a "pre‑packed commodity" under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The issue was whether sunglasses (and similar items such as watches, phones, appliances) fall within t…
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusRAJ MARKETING & ANR.
2011 INSC 61626 August 2011Dismissed
The State of Maharashtra seized several packaged food items from the respondent's godown alleging that the outer packs, which the authorities treated as wholesale packages, lacked the mandatory declarations required under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The respondent filed a w…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusRAJASTHAN CHEMIST ASSOCIATION
2006 INSC 46224 July 2006Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, which levied tax on the first point sale of drugs, medicines and formulations by wholesalers to retailers based on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) printed on the package rather than the actual consideration paid. T…
JAYANTI FOOD PROCESSING (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJASTHAN
2007 INSC 85422 August 2007Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 4 and 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and its Packaged Commodities Rules. It held that Section 4A applies only when five conditions are satisfied: the goods are excisable, sold in packages, a statutory req…
FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2017 INSC 121712 December 2017Appeal(s) allowed
The Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India challenged the applicability of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, its 1985 Enforcement Act and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 to the sale of packaged water bottles served in hotels and restaurants at prices above the printed MRP. The Single Judg…
M/S. I.T.C. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI AND ANR.
2004 INSC 51210 September 2004
ITC Ltd, a cigarette manufacturer, printed the maximum retail price (MRP) on its packs as required by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Packaged Commodities Rules. The Revenue alleged that the printed MRP was false, that ITC under‑priced its cigarettes to evade excise duty, and imposed penalties. The Ce…
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMITHKLINE BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS (INDIA) LIMITED)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2013 INSC 8139 December 2013Disposed off
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd challenged notices issued by the Drug Inspector after a price‑fixation notification under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995. The issue was whether the notified ceiling price became operative for all sales immediately, or whether manufacturers could continue to sell pre‑notificat…
SUBHANKAR BISWASversusSANDEEP META
2011 INSC 2837 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed
A complaint under Section 19 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 alleged violations of Rules 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 23 of the Packaged Commodities Rules, but failed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the day‑to‑day affairs of the company. The appellant, then Deputy General Manager, and the company …
BACCAROSE PERFUMES AND BEAUTY PRODUCTS PVT. LTDversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.
2024 INSC 6626 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed
Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd (the appellant) challenged the Special Judge's order taking cognizance of alleged offences relating to the payment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on invoice value instead of Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The company claimed that it had been granted immunity from prosecution u…
M/S. SONY INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI
2004 INSC 3405 May 2004Dismissed
Sony India Ltd, a colour‑television manufacturer, cleared packed TVs from its factory without printing the maximum retail price, affixing the price later at its depots and offering free gifts to buyers. The Central Excise authority demanded duty at the 18% ad valorem rate (based on the printed retail price) together wi…
M/S INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO. LTD.versusH.D. SHOURIE
1999 INSC 3003 August 1999Dismissed
The respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging that India Photographic Co. Ltd., a distributor of Kodak film rolls, sold the rolls without printing the sale price on each package, contrary to Rule 6(1)(t) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The District Consumer Forum, the S…
WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2007 INSC 11212 November 2007Dismissed
Whirlpool of India Ltd, a refrigerator manufacturer, challenged Notification No. 9 of 2000 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which required the maximum retail price (MRP) to be printed on the package of goods. The company argued that a refrigerator is not a “packaged commodity” within the meaning of th…