Case Law Details
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adithya Banavar (Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
The Brief facts are: Complainants went to Mantri Mall and purchased one litre water bottle of Aquafina, a 330 ml Pepsi Tin and 350 ml bottle of Nimbooz, which costs them at the rate of Rs.20, Rs.50/- and Rs.50/-, respectively in O.P.No.1-Palatte Mantri Square, whereas the same things were costs at Rs.15/-, Rs.25/- and Rs.15, respectively from Food World Super Market. It is the case of the complainants that, the MRP at the O.P.No. 1 for these things are different from the MRP marked on the identical products at Food World. There is no warning either on the product or separate warning on the bill that certain identical product is available at much cheaper rate at other retail shops, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Respondents/ complainants contended that, appellants/Ops marking different MRPs for different consumers, thereby misleading them as to the price at which the produce is ordinarily sold in the market. It is also contended by the Respondents/complainants in their written arguments that, they are not a service industry such as a hotel, airways, railways, etc., but are just students or customers who bought the said goods while they visited the mall. While the outlet ‘Pepsi’ in the Food Court ‘Palette’ may be an institutional consumer, when they resell it to others over a counter, the sale becomes a retail sale and therefore the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 would be applicable to the appellants herein. The Respondents/complainants in their written arguments contended that, the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot in any manner govern unfair trade practice and does not permit manufacturers to mark different MRPs for the same quantity and quality of goods, nor does it make it legal. It is also contended that, the Law governs only what would be the price on which excise duty would be calculated should there be different retail prices marked, dependant on different geographical area and in the present case, marking of different MRPs is being done in the same city, being Bangalore, and not in different geographical area and without any relevance to excise duty, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as it materially misleads the public on the price at which such goods are otherwise available. Under such situation, the only issue which shall be decided by this Commission is whether appellants/OPs are at liberty to print different MRPs as per Section-4A of Central Excise Act?. To decide the same, it is necessary to reproduce Section-4A of the Central Excise Act.
From the reading of Section-4A of the Central Excise Act, it is clear that the said provision cannot in any manner permit manufacturers to mark different MRPs for the same quantity and quality of goods. No doubt it only governs what would be the price on which excise duty would be calculated should there be different retail prices marked, dependant on different geographical areas. It is important to note here that, though the appellants/Ops contended that, they have paid the excise duty as contemplated u/s-4A of the Central Excise Act on the commodities in question, but have utterly failed to prove the same with cogent and reliable evidence. The decisions relied upon by the appellants/Ops do not come to their help. The appellants/Ops cannot go beyond the provisions contemplated under the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, under the guise of Central Excise Act, 1944, that too, in the absence of there being any acceptable evidence regarding whether the sale was retail sale or institutional sale and whether they have paid any excise duty to the concerned regarding the products.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
