Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977

9 judgments · newest first · showing 1–9

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEMversusM/S MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 893Dismissed

The case concerned whether pure coconut oil sold in small retail packs (5 ml‑2 L) should be classified as ‘edible oil’ under Heading 1513 of Chapter 15 or as ‘hair oil’ under Heading 3305 of Chapter 33 in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents marketed the oil as …

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusMADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD.

2018 INSC 333Directions issued

The case concerned the classification of 100% pure coconut oil packed in small retail containers. The Revenue argued that such packaging made the oil a "hair oil" falling under Chapter 33, Heading 3305, while the assessee contended it remained "coconut oil" under Chapter 15, Heading 1513. The Court …

FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2017 INSC 1217Appeal(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 …

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusSUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA

2011 INSC 615Matter 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, …

SUBHANKAR BISWASversusSANDEEP META

2011 INSC 283Appeal(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 …

WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2007 INSC 1121Dismissed

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” …

JAYANTI FOOD PROCESSING (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJASTHAN

2007 INSC 854Disposed 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 …

M/S. SONY INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

2004 INSC 340Dismissed

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 …