TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. The main motor with top and bottom canopies are packed in square corrugated box package. The base area of package is left blank. All the four side areas of the package has been reserved for principal display area wherein the petitioner's name, address, description of fan, manufacturing date (month and year), model number, serial number, the MRP, the contents of the box etc are declared by printing and by labels. All these information are said to be clearly visible in a plain and conspicuous manner. The petitioner therefore contends that the declaration on the package is totally in conformity with the rules. On 11-1-2005 the second respondent is said to have seized one pre-packed package of Khaitan fan on the ground, declaration of manufacturing month and year is affixed by a separate sticker on the package of ceiling fans. Accordingly, compounding notice dated 20-1-2005 was issued intimating registration of case for violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Though the petitioner is said to have explained the compliance of requirements, the second respondent indicated that further action would be initiated. The petitioner therefore questions the action of the second respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actured. Therefore, even though Section 83 of the Act provides the power to make rules, the same does not indicate power to frame rule as in the nature of Rule 6(1)(d) and even clause (zd) of sub-section (2) to Section 83 of the Act cannot come to the aid of the Rule making authority since Section 39 of the Act itself does not contemplate such requirement. 6. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court need not bind this Court and in any event, the said decision has not correctly appreciated the position of law. On the other hand the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Subash Arjandas Kataria, Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra and Others (AIR 2006 Bombay 293). Therefore, in that background, it is contended that considering the fact that a notification dated 26-9-1977 is issued bringing into force the provisions of Sections 1, 2, 3, 39, and 83, the said notification is sufficient to bring into force the Act and as such the petitioner has to comply with the requirements. The contention that the classes of goods should be notified separately is too far fetched co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision of the Act is clear that the pre-packed goods should display certain information on the packed material, the said information is required to be furnished on such package. Therefore, I am not persuaded to accept the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On the other hand, on this very aspect the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Subash Arjandas Kataria's case (cited supra) has noticed the very notification dated 26-9-1977 enforcing the provisions of Sections 1, 2, 3, 39 and 83 and a similar argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner had been rejected. As such I am of the view that the opinion expressed in the said case by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, is the appropriate decision and therefore, I am of the considered view that the provisions of the Act would be applicable even without any other specific notification regarding the classes of goods as contended and as such the Act would be applicable to the product manufactured by the petitioner as well. 8. With regard to the validity of Rule 6(1)(d) of the Rules, a perusal of the Rule would indicate that the said Rule states that the month and year in which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2) of Section 83 of the Act. Even otherwise, sub-section (2) itself would indicate that the power specified in sub-clauses (a) to (zd) to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act is without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing power. As such, I am of the opinion that any rule framed to achieve the object of the Act as a whole cannot be said to be invalid. In this regard, I am also fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.N. Roy, Commissioner of Police (cited supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated with regard to the manner of interpretation subsidiary rules. Hence the challenge to Rule 6(1)(d) is not sustainable and the same is accordingly to be rejected. 9. In so far as the notice issued to the petitioner which is impugned in this petition, a perusal of the same would indicate that the authorities have noticed that the declaration for manufacturing month and year is affixed by a separate sticker on the package held in question. In this regard, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 2(m) of the Rules provides with regard to the principal display panel which states that all the info....