Whether
definition of “Legal Metrology (Packaged commodities) Rules, 2011” can be used for
the interpretation of Notes in Chapters of Central Excise Tariff Act?
The
question boils down to the point of whether definition of one statute can be
utilised by other statute. This however is quite ineffective since each statute
is borne in its own context. Difference in the interpretation can lead to
inability in understanding law as is meant to be understood by the
legislatures. The main point in conflict in this scenario is the difference in
context. However cases, like Leukoplast v State of Goa 1988 36 ELT 369A (Bom)
and 1986 25 ELT 211(Tri-Delhi) etc chose to adopt definitions from other
statutes based on the similarity in context in which they appear.
The
present query specifies the utilisation of definition of Legal Metrology (Packaged
commodities) Rules to understand the meaning of chapter notes in Central Excise
Tariff. However there are no case laws interpreting this point based on
Metrology Rules. But Standards of Weights and Measurements (Packaged
commodities) Rules were in effect prior to 2011 and there exists one case law
2003 (156) ELT 136 (Tri-Mum) Johnson and Johnson v CCE, Mumbai
where definition of ‘label’ from the said Act was utilised for explaining
Chapter Note in Central Excise Tariff. (however this case interpreted the term
retail without any help from other statutes). Now the next question arise on
the point of extend of exchangeability of Standards of Weights and Measures Act
to Legal Metrology Act. Section 57 of the Act clarifies that any notification,
rule or order made under the Act will continue to remain in force if it was in
force during the commencement of the Act. The Rules does not prescribe any
similar provision to help. Rule 34 uses the word “decision” which will continue
to be in force. But there is no clearness as to what does the word “decision”
mean.
So ultimately there is no clarity
in law as to the present understanding. However we cannot but hope that our
judiciary will put an end to this baffling query as soon as possible since for
new issues are raising day by day, without a clear picture of how to go on
about it.
(Disclaimer:- The
opinion mentioned here is of the author and author alone and in no case, should it be linked to any another
advocate, be it the law firm where the author is currently working or any other
who may or may not know the author. The opinion has to be understood in the
context in which it is expressed and in that context only. Author will not be
liable for any misinterpretation of the idea mentioned in this article.)
