WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 02-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'· 
,.,...... 
j 
I 
~ 
' 
WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 2007 
[ASHOK BHAN, H.S. BEDI AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Central Excise Act 1944-s. 4 A (1) and (2)-Notification under-
One of the conditions for inclusion of the goods in the Notification that 
A 
B 
it should be 'packaged good'-/nclusion of Refrigerator in the C 
Notification-Challenged only on the ground that it is not a 'packaged 
. good '-Held: Reji-igerator is a 'packaged commodity' under Standards 
of Weights and Measures Act and Rules.framed thereunder-Hence its 
inclusion in Notification not wrong on this ground, unless validity of 
the Notification is challenged otherwise-Standards of Weights and D 
Measures Acf. 1976-s. 2(b)-Standards of Weights and Measures 
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977-rr. 2(1), 3 and 6. 
By Notification No. 9 of2000 dated 1.3.2000 under section 4A 
(1) and (2) of Central Excise Act, the goods mentioned in Column 5 
of the Notification were to be valued on the basis of Maximum Retail E 
Price which was required to be printed on the packages of such 
goods. Few of the Conditions for inclusion of the goods in the 
Notification was that the goods should be such as were sold in the 
package and there should be requirement in the Standards of 
\Veights and Measures Act, 1976 or the Rules framed thereunder F 
or any other law to declare the price of such goods relating to their 
retail price on the package. Appellant (manufacturer of Refrigerator) 
was aggrieved by inclusion of Refrigerator in the Notification on the 
ground that it should not be required to declare the MRP on the 
refrigerators as the same cannot be termed as a 'packaged G 
commodity' and the provisions of Standards of Weights and 
Measures, Act, 1976 or the Rules made thereunder were not 
applicable to it. Appellant filed Writ Petition challenging the 
869 
H 
I 
-\ 
' 
870 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
~. 
,,., 
A 
Notification to this limited extent. High Court dismissed the Writ 
Petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal~ the Court 
HELD: 1. It was not disputed that the appellant-manufacturer 
B 
has to sell the Refrigerators which are packed in polythene cover, 
~-
thermocol, etc., and placed in hard board cartons. Once that position 
""' 
is clear, then the Refrigerator clearly becomes a commodity in the 
packaged form. [Para 4] (873-D, E] 
c 
2. The use of the terms "or otherwise" in the definition of 
'Commodity in packaged form' u/s 2 (b) of Standards of Weights and 
Measures Act would suggest that a commodity if packed in any 
manner in units suitable for sale, whether wholesale or retail, 
becomes a "commodity in packed form". Even if the package of the 
D 
Refrigerator is required to be opened for testing, even then the 
~ 
Refrigerator would continue to be a "pre-packed commodity". There 
r 
are various types of packages defined under the Rules and ultimately 
Rule 3 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged 
Commodities) Rules, 1977 specifically suggests that the provisions 
E 
of Chapter II would apply to the packages intended for "retail sale" 
and the expression "package" would be construed accordingly. Once 
the position that the Refrigerator is not covered under the 'retail 
sale' is clear, Rule 6 would specifically include the Refrigerator and 
would carry along with it the requirements by that Rule of printing 
certain information including the sale price on the package. Thus it 
~ 
F 
is clear that by being sold by the manufacturer in a packaged form, 
the Refrigerator would be covered by the provisions of the Act and 
the Rules and it WOI:fld be imperative that the MRP has to be printed 
in terms of Rule 6. [Para 4] (873-E, F; 874-C, D, E, F] 
G 
3. Even if the MRP would be different depending upon the a~ea 
in which it is being sold, that cannot absolve the manufacturer from 
~t-
displaying the price, i.e., the MRP on the package in which the 
Refrigerator is packed. A Refrigerator is a "packaged commodity" 
and thus is covered under the Act and the Rules and therefore, the 
f ., 
H 
notification dated 1.3.2000 cannot be faulted on that ground. The 
I 
l 
WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 
871 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.] 
appellant has not otherwise challenged the validity of the Notification A 
on any other ground. Once the Notification included the Refrigerator, 
unless the validity of the notification was challenged, the appellant 
cannot get out of the scope of the not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.