Pre-packaged commodity classification must be decided case by case under the statutory definition and applicable facts.

The clarification on pre-packaged commodities was treated as limited to the statutory definition, indicating that tyres, tubes and flaps in package form may fall within it only if the statutory ingredients are satisfied. The Court did not examine the rival merits of the challenge in the abstract and left the matter to the competent authority. Each petitioner's case must be assessed separately on its own facts, under the governing law, and without being influenced by the impugned communications or the respondents' pleadings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned clarification and circular warranted interference, and whether the authorities were bound to decide each petitioner's case individually on its own merits under the governing law.

Analysis: The proceedings under challenge merely referred to the statutory definition of pre-packaged commodity and stated that tyres, tubes and flaps in package form may fall within that definition if the statutory ingredients are satisfied. The respondents also assured that each case would be examined separately, on its own facts and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the impugned communications or by the pleadings filed in court. In that situation, the Court found no necessity to enter into the merits of the rival contentions or to pronounce upon the correctness of the clarification in the abstract. The proper course was to leave the determination to the competent adjudicating authority, which must apply the statutory definition and decide each matter independently.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not decided on merits and the authorities were directed to consider each case independently, on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the impugned proceedings or the respondents' pleadings.

---