HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD. Vs. CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY DEPT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is preferred by a Government of India undertaking, involved in the production of blood bags, Cu-T etc. The grievance voiced in the writ petition is with respect to the decision taken by the 3rdrespondent to calibrate the tanks installed in the premises of the petitioner in view of Ss. 24(1) and (2) and 3(j) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act,1985 ( for short, the 'Enforcement Act') and Sec. 2(z) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (For short, 'the Act 1976').

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner had installed a storage tank having capacity of 20,000 liters for the purpose of storing the furnace oil in their factory in 1995. Two storage tanks for storing High Speed Diesel having a capacity of 10,000 litres and 8,000 litres were installed in the year 2001. It is further stated that, the petitioner is using the furnace oil and High Speed Diesel stored in the tanks mentioned above only as fuel in the Boiler and DG sets, which are not raw material for the production of blood bags and Cu-T, the products manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in the selling of the furnace oil and High Speed Diesel stored in the said storage tanks or supplying the same to any other third party. The petitioner purchases furnace oil and HSD from the Cochin Refineries Ltd and BPCL, which are then transported to the petitioner's factory by the petitioner through a contractor.

(3.) While so, the petitioner received Ext.P1 demand notice dtd. 9/2/2004 from the first respondent informing that, the storage tanks comes under the definition of Ss. 2(V) and (Z) of the Act 1976 and Sec. 3(J) of the Enforcement Act and requesting to take urgent steps to get the storage tanks calibrated by the Legal Metrology Department at the earliest. Thereafter, the 1strespondent issued a demand dtd. 3/3/2004 whereby, directed to remit an amount of Rs.77,318.00. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Sec. 69 of the Enforcement Act before the 2ndrespondent. Whereas, the 2nd respondent as per order dtd. 11/4/2005 upheld the demands covered by Exts.P1 and P2 as per Ext.P3. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition under Sec. 69(5) of the Enforcement Act before the 3rd respondent. By order dtd. 9/5/2006, the revision petition was also dismissed, which is produced as Ext.P4.