REEBOK INDIA COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of fact and that of law arise for decision-making. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order.

(2.) THE Petitioner a manufacturer of sports goods including Footwear has its authorised dealers in Belgaum amongst others, in all parts of this country. On 29-03-2006, and 5.4.2006, the 4th respondent is said to have searched the showroom of the petitioner's distributor M/s. Square Cut and M/s. Foot Mark, respectively, and seized shoes in packages said to be in violation of Sections 39, 63 of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (for short 'Act') read with Rules 33(v) and 23(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities), Rules, 1977 (for short 'PC Rules'). THE inspection, it is said, disclosed that the package in which the shoe was packed, did not contain the Maximum Retail Price (M.R.P.) inclusive of all taxes, in violation of Section 2(r) and Section 39 and 63 of the Act and PC Rules. THE 4th respondent issued the notice dated 8-04-2006 and 26-05-2006 Annexure-"C", in each of the writ petitions, pointing out to the contravention of law and informing the petitioner that the violations were compoundable under Section 73 of the Act and directed its appearance before the Compounding Authority, failing which a complaint would be lodged before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Hence, these writ petitions for the following reliefs:

(3.) PER contra, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Central Government reiterates the averments in the Statement of objections and in addition submits that the rule of ejusdem generis does not apply to Section 1(3)(d) in the light of the Notification of the year 1977 coupled with the definition of the term 'commodity in packaged form' in Section 2(b) of the Act. Learned counsel contends that the Act as well as the PC Rules were enacted to protect the consumers so as to pay only such price as has been permitted and printed on the package. Learned counsel places reliance upon the decision in Jayanthi Food Processing (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajasthan (2007) 8 SCC 34. It is further contended that since the petitioner's commodity was kept for 'retail sale' defined in Rule 2(q), consequently Rule 6 applies, requiring declaration of the 'retail sale price' as defined in Rule 2(r) of the PC Rules. Learned counsel hastens to add that the shoes packed in carton boxes for retail sale was for consumption of the ultimate user, the consumer, making it mandatory for every package to contain declarations including there tail sale price.