Wholesale package definition read independently, allowing exemption from MRP declaration and assessment under Section 4A.

A statutory definition framed in distinct sub-clauses must be applied by reading each condition separately where an authoritative clarification states that they are independent, not cumulative. On that basis, the "wholesale package" conditions under Rule 2(x) were treated as disjunctive, and goods satisfying the relevant requirements qualified for exemption under Rule 34(b) from MRP declaration and assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Duty was therefore held assessable under Section 4 instead of Section 4A, and the exemption claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conditions defining a "wholesale package" under Rule 2(x) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 are to be read independently or cumulatively, and whether the goods were entitled to exemption under Rule 34(b) from declaration of MRP and assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: The clarification issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs stated that the sub-clauses under Rule 2(x) relating to "wholesale package" are to be read independently and not in conjunction. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's view requiring cumulative satisfaction of all conditions was incorrect. The respondent had shown that the subject goods fell within the ambit of "wholesale package" and therefore qualified for exemption under Rule 34(b), with duty liability arising under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act instead of Section 4A.

Conclusion: The exemption claim was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory definition is framed in distinct sub-clauses and an authoritative clarification states that those sub-clauses are independent, each condition must be considered separately and not cumulatively for determining entitlement to exemption.

---