Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers or institutional consumers."

Rule 6 (1) - Declarations to be made on every package (1) Every package shall bear thereon or on label securely affixed thereto, a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as to -.....

The relevant definition as per SWM Act & Rules read thus:

SWM Act Section 2 (b) "commodity in packaged form" means commodity packaged, whether in any bottle, tin wrapper or otherwise, in units suitable for ale, whether wholesale or retail. SWM (PC) Rules Rule 2 (k) "Packer" means a person who, or a firm or a Hindu undivided family, which pre-packs any commodity, whether in any bottle, tin, wrapper or otherwise in units suitable for sale whether wholesale or retail; Rule 2(l) "Pre-packaged commodity" means a commodity which without the purchaser being present, is placed in a package of whatever nature, whether sealed or opened, so that the product contained therein has a pre-determined value and includes those commodities which could be taken out of the package for testing or examining or inspecting the commodity.

16. At para 29 of the impugned OIO, the Commissioner observes that '..ATL have carry strapped the Tubes & Flaps inserted into the Tyres which is a pre-packaged commodity in terms of Section 2(l) of Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and this fact was also suppressed...'. From the above, we fail to understand if there is any deviating factual matrix; Primarily, there is no denial as to the practice adopted by the Appellant/Assessee over last 25 years and secondly, their declarations in the statutory documents for over 25 years as pleaded including for the period under challenge remains consistent. Facts of the case, the consistent practice of the Assessee and requirement under relevant statues have consistently remained the same.

23. This apart, we also find that there was a specific plea as to the non-applicability of LM Act by virtue of exemption since the pre-packaged commodity exceeded the weight specified under the said Act, the lower authority has once again failed to give a finding on this plea. When a specific plea is urged in response to a statutory notice, it is the duty of issuing authority to meet the grievance, consider the same on its merits and then give a proper finding. Not addressing the pleas/defense urged by a noticee would only indicate the incompetence and that the Authority had no answer; assuming silence may amount to acceptance. But in any case, the above two crucial facts are enough to hold that there was no suppression, much less with an intent to evade duty, and hence, the duty demand by invoking the extended period of limitation is clearly an out of question.