Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR2006Bom293; 2007(2)BomCR945; 2006(44)MhLj361
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in Sun Glasses and has a counter on commission basis at Globus Stores, Bandra. On 17th October, 2003 the 2nd respondent visited Globus Stores and under a panchnama seized 5 sun glasses belonging to the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Rules framed under the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act), which are known as the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged) Commodities Rules, 1977, which hereinafter are to be referred to, as the Rules. There is yet another Act known as the Standards of Weights and Measurements (Enforcement) Act, 1985 which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Enforcement Act. On 22nd October, 2003 as per the pleadings in the petition the respondent No. 2 along with other officers visited the office premises and handed over a show cause notice in Proforma 'A' calling on the petitioners to compound the offenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2011(2)KLJ613; 2011(2)ILR(Ker)804; 2011(2)KLT1040; 2011CrLJ3791; 2011(2)KHC582
The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether an advertisement made by the first petitioner, M/s.Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., in India Today (Malayalam) in respect of their vehicle, Scorpio, in which the engine of the vehicle is described as having 109 BHP would constitute an offence under Section 11 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, Sections 14 and 79 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and under item No.11 of Part II of the Second Schedule to Rule 5 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (National Standards) Rules, 1988. 2. The first petitioner Company, established in 1945, is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of motor vehicles under a general brand name "Mahindra". The petitioners released an advertisement in which the engine was described as having 109 BHP, BHP being British Horse Power. The second respondent, the Inspector of Legal Metrology, Kanhangad, issued Ext.P1 show cause notice to the second petitioner, the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
. WRIT PETITION (Cr.) No. 318 o1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2.Sri A.C.Sen, General Manager 3. Sri Swapan Kumar Mondal,Asstt.Manager.. .. Petitioners. Versus 1. TheState of Jharkhand 2. The State of Bihar 3. Sri Santosh Kumar Prasad ......Respondents ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Delip Jerath For the State : Mr. R.P.Singh, JC to G.P.II. ----- PRESENT : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR ----- Reserved on :12. 07.2013 Delivered on :17. 08/2013 Prashant Kumar,J.This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case no. WM 214/05 including the order dated 05.08.2000 whereby and where under learned court below took cognizance against petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely,Sri A.C.Sen, and Sri Swapan Kumar Mondal, respectively under sections 45 and 47 of the Standards of Weights and Measurement (Enforcement) Act, 1985( herein after referred as the Act of 1985) 2. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner no.1 is an under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
Reported in : (2004)(93)ECC639
1. These are two appeals. Appeal No. E/701/2002 is filed by the appellants, M/s. ITEL Industries Pvt. Ltd. whereas the appeal No.E/902/2002 is filed by Revenue, against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin, who while confirming the demand has dropped the penalty proceedings under Section 11AC even though Section 11AC was invoked in Show Cause Notice No. 2/2000-01 for period 1-3-2000 to 31-8-2000 while in subsequent notice for period 1-9-2000 to 31-1-2001 it was not invoked.2. M/s. ITEL Industries Pvt. Ltd., Palakkad (formerly Tata Telecom Ltd.) are manufacturers of Telephone Instruments falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and clearing the same by resorting to MRP based assessment under Section 4A of Central Excise Act. They cleared push button Telephones to the DOT and MTNL on contract price and they are alleged to have claimed 40% abatement from the contract price to arrive at the assessable value. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1441
ORDERB.M. Thulasidas, J.1. The accused in S. T. No. 103 of 1992 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, is the petitioner. The revision is directed against the order of the Magistrate dated 30-1-1992 on Crl. M. P. 509 of 1992. The M. C. is filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above case. These were heard together.2. In the complaint filed by the respondent, it is alleged that he inspected the trade premises of one Hamza, near Civil Station, Malappuram, on 22-4-1991 and found him to have 'displayed for retail sale packets containing Chancellor Cigarettes.' They did not bear proper delcarations as required under Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packages Commodities) Rules. They were manufactured by the petitioner who had violated Section 39 of the Standards of Weights and Measures and Rule 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules and was liable for punishment under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994(1)ALT(Cri)606; 1993CriLJ3523
ORDER1. This petition is filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioners in S.T.C. No. 135 of 1992 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. 2. The prosecution is launched for the violation of the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the rules of Weights and Measures (Packed Commodities) Rules, 1977. Concisely the case is that the commodity in question i.e., Tenormin Eles tablets with a composition of Atonolal is being packed with fourteen tablets instead of multiples of five as contemplated under Schedule-VI which is appended to Rule 13(5) of Weights and Measures (Packed Commodities) Rules, 1977. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 13 of Weights and Measures (Packed Commodities) Rules, 1977, reads as follows :- '...... When any commodity is packed by number, such number shall be expressed on the package in international form of Indian numerals, and every package intended to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. The appellant has challenged order of adjudication dated-16/01/2004 holding that value of impugned neam active tooth paste shall form part of the combi pack containing two Margo soaps and such value should be included in the MRP declared on the package carrying all these three goods. The authority below relying on the definition of "multi Piece package" under Rule 2(J) of Standard Weights and Measures (package commodities) Rules 1977 held that value of the tooth paste shall be liable to be added to the MRP declared by the appellant on the package.2.1 The learned Counsel Dr. Chakraborty appearing for the appellant submitted that Section 4A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 having provided substantial provision prescribing modality of packaged commodities, there shall be no other room opened to value such goods.Sub-section 4A(1) of the said Act covers goods in question governed by Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 relating to package commodities. He drew our attention to R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi1; 63(1996)DLT306; 1996(38)DRJ327
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present judgment will dispose of two petitions being C.W.P.No-5424/93 (Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others) and C.W.P.No-546/1995 (M/s Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others). The First petition is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification dated 26th August, 1993 and for an appropriate order or direction including writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from in any manner implementing and acting upon or enforcing the provisions of the aforesaid notification. It may only be necessary to state the facts of the first petition as both the petitions raise common questions of law in respect of the challenge to the same notification.(2) Petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of paper, Chemicals, edible oils etc. and is alleged to be one of the biggest manufacturer of edible oils with large turnover. Petitioner No.2 is engaged in the business of d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)1MLJ553
ORDERE. Padmanabhan, J.1. W.P. No. 16123 of 1997 has been filed by M/s. Cottage Industries a Unit of Sri Aurobindo Udyog Trust praying for the issue of writ of declaration declaring as illegal and unenforceable the notification dated 7.3.1997 made in G.S.R. 140 (E) by the Ministry of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution in so far as it seeks to limit Sub-clause (c) of Rule 34, in respect of the item 'Incense sticks' under Standard Weight of (PC) Rules, 1977 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.2. W.P. No. 16124 of 1997 has been filed by M/s Udavi Auroshika Agarbathis seeking for identical relief.3. Both the writ petitions were heard jointly and Mr. S. Venkataraman, counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the notification dated 7.3.1997 is illegal and unenforceable.4. The petitioners in both the Writ petitions claim that they are manufacturers of Agarbathi and the manufacturing of Agarbathis is a cottage industry. It is the claim of the petitioner th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1.1 Appeal No. E/419/, 512, 526, 527, 1519 and 1520/05 are filed by M/s. Mackson Food Pvt. Ltd. and Appeal No. E/420/05 is filed by M/s.Makson Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellants), who are engaged in the manufacture of confectionary, falling under sub-heading 1704.90 and 1804.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.They manufacture and sell confectioneries of various brands and names on outright basis to M/S. Nestle India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'NIL') and M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'HLL').1.2 The manner of packing/selling the sugar confectionary (e.g. Toffy Max Caramel/Chocolate) is described as under: a) Individual Toffy Max Caramel/Chocolate is wrapped in a printed plastic film. The weight of the individual Toffy Max Caramel/ Chocolate is about 4 gms., including the weight of the wrapper. b) The Toffy Max Caramel/Chocolate are thereafter packed in wholesale pack. The wholesale packs either in the form of plastic ja...
Tag this Judgment!