Pre-packed commodity classification and Rule 34 exemption cannot be narrowed by extra conditions beyond the text of the rules.

A packaged-commodities dispute turned on whether the goods were a pre-packed commodity and, if so, whether Rule 34 exemption applied. The court noted that a pre-packed commodity is one placed in a package without the purchaser being present, with quantity pre-determined and not alterable without opening or perceptible modification; if the goods were not pre-packed, compliance under Rules 35 and 36 would not arise. It also held that Rule 34 requires only the express indication that the commodity is specially packed for exclusive use as raw material or for servicing an industry, mine or quarry, and the authority could not add extra conditions beyond the rule. The impugned finding was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was manufacturing and selling a pre-packed commodity within the meaning of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption under Rule 34.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was manufacturing and selling a pre-packed commodity within the meaning of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.

Analysis: A pre-packed commodity is one placed in a package without the purchaser being present, so that the quantity contained therein has a pre-determined value and cannot be altered without opening the package or undergoing a perceptible modification. If the commodity is not sold as a pre-packed commodity, the registration and compliance requirements under Rules 35 and 36 do not arise.

Conclusion: This issue required fresh determination by the authority and was not conclusively answered in the impugned order.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption under Rule 34.

Analysis: Rule 34 requires that the package unambiguously indicate that the commodity is specially packed for exclusive use as raw material or for servicing an industry, mine, or quarry. The authority added a further requirement that the package should state that it is not for sale or that it is packed for exclusive use within the factory, which went beyond the rule and therefore could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The finding on this issue was quashed and the appeal was directed to be reheard afresh on the question of exemption under Rule 34.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned finding on the third issue was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on the two identified issues in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority cannot impose exemption conditions under the Packaged Commodities Rules beyond the express requirements of Rule 34, and a dispute on the applicability of the rules to a commodity sold in packages must be determined by first deciding whether the goods are in fact a pre-packed commodity.

---