Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: standards of weights and measures act 1976 section 66 penalty for contravention of section 49 Page 19 of about 193 results (0.158 seconds)

Goa Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2000)(72)ECC822

..... find from the wordings of the explanation that it is the declaration on the excisable goods in fact and practice the price is declared on the packages in terms of standards of weights and measures act, 76 or the rules made thereunder. thus, it is the price declared on the container or packaging which has been referred to in explanation 2 of ..... 1. the applicants manufacture aerated waters attracting the provisions of standards of weight and measures (packaged commodity) rules, 1977 issued under the standards of weights & measures act, 1976. section 4a of the central excise act, 1944 relates to the valuation of goods to which the cited rules apply. the assessees factory is situated in goa. .....

Controls and Switchgears Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2005)(101)ECC316

..... for retail sale. these goods are for exclusive use of industries as a 'raw material' and these are not intended to be for retail sale, therefore, exempted under the standards of weights and measures act, 1976 (swma). the goods are liable for assessment under section 4 of the central excise act.4. the contention of the revenue is that the goods in ..... of the goods. the contention of the appellants is that these goods are not for retail sale. therefore, are exempted under rule 34 of standards of weights and measures act, 1976. we find that rule 34 of standards of weights and measures act (packaged commodities) rules, 1997 provides exemption in respect of certain packages if the making of the packages unambiguously indicate that it .....

Alpa Resins and Paints Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... as the appellant had already printed mrp, provisions of section 4a would apply. we fully agree that the contention of the id. advocate that the authorities under the standards of weights & measures act, 1976 are the best persons and experts to clarify as to whether the provisions of the said act are applicable or not. the commissioner, if ..... for which there is no statutory requirement to print/declare the mrp on the packages as per the standards of weights & measures act, 1976 or in or rules made therein or other law for the time being in force provisions of section 4a will not be applicable. our ..... invoked.3. on the other hand the appellants contention is that they have mentioned mrp only to remove doubts and not as a mandatory condition under the provisions of standards of weights & measures act, 1976.relying upon the boards circular no. 625/16/2002-cx., dated 28-2-2002, wherein it was clarified by the board that excisable goods .....

icon Household Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in : (2007)(122)ECC97

..... supplied free. in that case the asst. controller of legal metrology had certified that the products sold together should also comply with the requirements of standards of weights and measures act and hence, product shampoo sold with face wash gel was covered under the said act.such package was defined under the said ..... himalaya drug co. case (supra), the appellants had cleared shampoo and gel in combination packages. both the products are covered under section 4a and the standards of weights and measures act. gel was supplied free in the combipack and mrp was printed on the package. the tribunal decided that in that case, the combipack ..... appellants manufactured what they called mortein redlight combipack. on the combipack, mrp was printed as rs. 36/- in compliance with the requirement of provisions of standards of weight and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977. it was submitted that the combipack was manufactured and cleared by the assessee on which the assessee had paid applicable .....

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Mistair Health and Hygiene ...

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

..... from the apex courts judgement in jayanti foods processing case. in that case, the counsel for the assessee had relied on rule 34 (a) of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules and pointed out that the goods in question was completely covered under the said rule inasmuch as the package specifically declared that it ..... out and, therefore, the goods were cleared without display of mrp thereon. on this basis, it is submitted that, by virtue of rule 34 (a) of the standards of weights and measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1997, the subject goods was exempt from the requirement of any mrp having to be affixed on the package and, consequently, it fell ..... the commissioner (appeals) held that section 4a was applicable only where the goods were printed with mrp and sold as such as per the requirements of the standards of weights and measures act and the rules made thereunder. it was also noted that the board had clarified in a circular dated 11/08/97 that, even where .....

Pramod Sanghi Vs. Chutneys Coffee House Opp:hindu Shamshan Ghat Banjar ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad

..... no sale of bottled mineral water but only a service of serving mineral water to the customers. therefore, there is no violation of packaging rules prescribed under the standards of weights and measures act, 1976. we observe from the record that this contention is not substantiated by any documentary evidence as the opposite party did not choose to file ..... opposite parties 2 and 3 and the bottle does not reflect the maximum retail price and thereby opposite parties 2 and 3 violated the packaging rules prescribed under the standards of weights and measures act, 1977 and hence the opposite parties are liable for unfair trade practice in charging more price than the mrp and also for selling the bottles ..... a higher price of the goods or there is a price dispute due to unfair trade price as per section 2(1)(r)(ix) of the act of 1986. in standard automobilesv. dr. syed ashraf, ii (1991) cpj 626 (kerala) where price of the ignition coil was rs. 75 inclusive of all taxes, but appellants of that case .....

itc Ltd. Vs. Cc

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Reported in : (1998)(77)LC411Tri(Chennai)

..... and the address of the manufacturer and other particulars. he, therefore, stated that in view of standards of weights and measures act, 1976, there is no such obligation. he, further, relied on the fax message given by the foreign supplier dated 10.7.1997 wherein ..... applied to packages intended for retail sale and the.....therefore, this provision is applicable to the packages made by an indian manufacturer of commodities, and sold in standard packages. but the same is not a pre-requisite for a foreign supplier. there is no such corresponding provision for a foreign supplier to mark their name ..... the same reasoning 7. the learned advocate in a rejoinder stated that under the law relating to the weights and measures, it was stated under section 4 that specific commodities should be packed and sold only in standard packages and under section 6 every package shall bear thereon or on a label securely affixed mentioning the name .....

Loknath Prasad Gupta Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta

..... appeal is 1-9-2004 to 31-7-2004.during this period, there was no provision for declaration of mrp under the provisions of standards of weights & measures act, 1976 (in short 1976 act) or under the standards of weights & measures (packaged commodities) rules, 1977 (in short 1977 rules). in these circumstances, duty was discharged on the goods cleared during this period by arriving ..... packages in question, as rule 34 (b) of the 1977 rules specifically provides that nothing contained in these rules shall apply to any packs containing the commodity if the net weight or measure of the commodity is 20 gms or 20 ml or less as in this case.the second proviso to this rule 34(b) as it stood up top ..... be declared on packages containing 100 gms to 20 gms or 10 ml to 20 ml.in the present case, since the detailed pouches are 5 or 9 gms net weight of the commodity is less than 10 gm in the circumstances and in view of the provisions of rule 34 (b) of 1977 rules, the markings was not required of .....

Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (2005)(182)ELT380TriDel

..... noted to be received by them and no payment whatsoever was made to the supplier for such higher quantity; that such negligible difference in quantity is permissible under the standards of weights and measures act/rules. he has also relied upon the decision in the case of neera enterprises v. cce, chandigarh, 1998 (104) e.l.t. 382 ..... has been received short, no modvat credit can be availed of on such quantity.4. we have considered the submissions of both the sides. as the difference in weight of the inputs is ranging between 0.08 to 0.39% only which may be on account of so many factors mentioned by the learned advocate, the applicants ..... (tri.) wherein it has been held by the tribunal that modvat credit is available when the weight of inputs in receipt is not substantially different from the weight of inputs actually received.3. opposing the prayer shri vikas kumar, learned senior departmental representative submitted that modvat credit of the duty is available .....

Cce Vs. Acme Healthcare

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2005)(189)ELT82Tri(Mum.)bai

..... .the ld. dr also reiterated the grounds and plea in the report on above terms.2.1 the ld. advocate for the respondent relies upon rule 3 of the standard of weights & measures (packaged) commodities rules, 1977 which stipulates that the provisions of chapter ii of the said rules of declaration of mrp etc. will apply only to packages ..... on the product but that was not a legal requirement/obligation/statutorily required as subject goods were clearly and conspicuously declared as sample, not for sale, hence provisions of standards of weights & measures act, 1976 shall not apply and was covered by board's circular no. 625/6/2002-cx dated 28.2.2002.1.3 samples were shown ..... s circular no. 625/16/02-cx dated 28.02.2002, it was submitted that section 4a would be applicable provided there was statutory requirement under the provisions of weights & measures act to declare retail sale price on the package and as per provision of rule 34(b) under that act such printing is not statutory requirement if .....