TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Rule 17(2) on Product Packaging</h1> <h3>HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA</h3> The Court interpreted Rule 17(2) to require the declaration 'not for loose sale' on the outer package when individual pieces are not intended for separate ... Writ petition – seizure - packages did not comply with the provisions of Rule 17(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 inasmuch as the petitioner herein had not imprinted on the individual soaps contained inside the packages a declaration “not for loose sale” - Held that:- declaration on individual pieces particularly when the individual pieces are neither packaged or labelled or are being capable of being sold separately, is not necessary to be printed. A declaration to that effect on the outer cover of the multi-piece pack would amount to compliance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 17, petition succeed Issues:Violation of Rule 17(2) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 leading to seizure of goods. Interpretation of Rule 17(2) - whether the declaration 'not intended for retail sale' should be on individual pieces or the outer package.Analysis:The petitioner sought a writ to quash an order by the Controller of Legal Metrology seizing 247 boxes of bathing bars for non-compliance with Rule 17(2) of the Rules. The dispute centered on whether the declaration 'not for loose sale' should be on individual soaps or the outer multipiece package. The appellate authority upheld the seizure, requiring the declaration on each individual piece, not just the outer pack, for compliance. The petitioner argued that the declaration on the outer package sufficed, while the respondent contended it should be on individual pieces.Rule 17(2) mandates additional declarations on multi-piece packages, including a declaration that individual pieces not carrying a retail price are not intended for retail sale. The proviso states that if individual pieces can be sold separately, they should bear quantity and price declarations. In this case, the multi-piece package contained three bathing bars not packaged separately for individual sale, lacking retail prices. Therefore, the outer cover should declare the individual pieces are not for retail sale, as per Rule 17(2).The Court interpreted Rule 17(2) to require the declaration on the outer cover when individual pieces are not packaged or labeled for separate sale. Compliance with the rule was found in the outer package's declaration that individual units were not for loose sale. A notification deleting Rule 17(2) from the Rules further supported the Court's decision. Consequently, the petition succeeded, ordering the seized articles returned to the petitioner within four weeks, with no costs imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
