STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.versusSUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA

                       [2011] 10 S.C.R. 708


A            STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
                                 V.
                SUBHASH ARJUNDAS KATARIA
                 (Civil Appeal No.1117 of 2010)
                        AUGUST 26, 2011
B
          [P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]

        Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 - s.2(b)
  - "Commodity in packaged form" - "Pre-packed commodity"
C - In *Whirlpool case, it was held that refrigerator is covered
  under the term "pre-packed commodity - Placing reliance
  upon the *Whirlpool case, the appellant-State contended that
  the products in question (i.e. sun glasses, watches, fixed
  wireless phones, electrical goods, home appliances,
D consumer electronics and Microwave Oven) could also be
  considered as "pre-packed commodity" within the meaning of
  the Act and the Rules - Respondent however disputed the
  applicability of the *Whirlpool case on grounds that the issue
  in that case was in the context of Central Excise Act, and that
E the judgment was sub silentio as the provisions of the Act were
  not taken into consideration in the said case - Held: Though
  the decision in *Whirlpool case was made in the context of
  the Central Excise Act, it cannot be claimed that the judgment
  in *Whirlpool case has no bearing on the issues in the instant
F appeals - Inasmuch as the said decision was rendered by a
  bench of three Hon'ble Judges with reference to the very same
  Act and Rules, the issue raised in all these appeals have to
  be heard by a larger Bench - Standards of Weights and
  Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - r. 2(1).
G     ·The question which arose in the present appeals
  was as to what is the true scope and correct purport of
  the expression "commodity in packaged form" under
  Section 2(b) of the Standards of Weights and Measures
  Act, 1976. In the main Civil Appeal, the specific question
H                             708
    STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. SU~HASH 709
                ARJUNDAS KATARIA
                                          '
    was whether the sun glasses can be considered 11 pre· A
    packed commodity" under Rule 2(1) of the Standards of
    Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, ·
    1977. In the connected appeals, the product includes
    Titan watches, fixed wireless phones, sun glasses,
    electrical goods, home appliances, consumer electronics B
    and Samsung Microwave Oven. The High Court allowed
    the writ petition filed by the respondent holding that the
    sun glasses, whether it be a frame or glass is not a "pre-
    pac ked commodity" within the definition of the
    expression "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(1) of c
    the Rules. The State of Maharashtra is the appellant in all
    these appeals.
         The appellant-State submitted that the said Rules fell
    for interpretation before this Court in the case of
    *Whirlpool wherein it was held that the refrigerator is       D
    covered under the term "pre-packed commodity".
    Placing reliance upon the said decision, the appellant-
    State submitted that sun glasses are also "pre-packed
    commodity" within the meaning of the Act and the Rules
    and that the other products also would come within the        E
    above mentioned definition and by applying the ratio in
    that decision prayed for setting aside the impugned order
    of the High ,Court.
/        The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that
1   the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 brings        F
    in its purview not all the items which are kept in the
    package to protect or for other reasons but is limited to
    packaged commodity as defined under the Act, which are
    being sold by weights or measures or numbers, and
    which are being sold in a packed form without unpacking       G
    such packaged commodities at the time of sale and the
    sun glasses do not come within the ambit of definition
    of "commodity in packaged form" in terms of Section 2(b)
    of the Act nor under the purview of "pre-packed
    commodity" under Rule 2(1) of the Rules. It was also          H
    710      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A highlighted that sunglasses cannot be sold in the
   packaged condition without opening the packaging since
  .the customer will buy only after comparing, trying it 'Out
   for size and after checking its aesthetic value, the quality
   of glass and vision, looks etc and therefore, the sun
B glasses can never be and are not sold in packaged
   condition. The respondent further submitted that the ratio
   of the judgment in *Whirlpool was not at all applicable to
   the instant case.
                  \,

          Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court
c
      HELD:1.1. Considering the definition of "commodity
  in packaged form" as in Section 2(b) of the Standards of
  Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and that of "pre-packed
  commodity" as in Rule 2(1) of the of the Standards of
D Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules,
  1977, the High Court observed that the expression "pre-
  packaged commodity" would be applicable to:- (i)
  commodities which are packed, 2nd (ii) the commodity
  packaged has a pre-determined value and (iii) that value
E cannot be altered without the package sold being
  opened at the time of sale, or (iv) the product undergoes
  a modification on being opened. [Para 7] [715-F-H; 716·
  A]

       1.2. In the case of sun glasses, whether they come
F in a box or not, insofar as the retailer is concerned, at the
  time when they are being sold to the consumer, are not
  in packaged form. Even if it is held that they come in a
  packaged form, before they are sold to the consumer by
  removing them from the box, the value does not alter nor
G does the product undergo a perceptive modification and
  as such the provisions, particularly, under Section 2(b)
  of the Act are not applicable. Further, as rightly observed
  by the High Court, the Explanation to the said Rule is also
  not attracted because the package is not opened for the
H purpose of testing as in the case of electric bulbs. It is
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. SUBHASH 711
            ARJUNDAS KATARIA
                                       '·
clear that the expression "pre-packed commodity" would A
be applicable to commodities which are packed and the
commodity packaged has a pre-determined value and
that value cannot be altered without the package sold
being opened at the time of sale or the product
undergoes a modification on being opened. The B
Explanation I to Rule 2(1) of the Rules is not attracted
because the package is not opened for the purpose of
testing as in the case of electric bulbs. The sun glasses
are tested by the buyer for his suitability, and therefore,
sun glasses, whether it be a frame or glass is not a pre- c
packed commodity within the definition of the expression
"pre-packed" under Rule 2(1) of the Rules, hence, the High
Court was fully justified in allowing the writ petition filed
by the respondent. Similar arguments advanced relating
to other products as mentioned are also acceptable .. 0
[Paras 8, 9] [716-8-H]                          ·

     2. The respondent submitted that the ratio of the
judgment in *Whirlpool is not at all applicable to the
instant cases, firstly, because the issue in that case was
in context of Central Excise Act and, secondly, because      E
none of the aspects stated were taken into consideration
by this Court in the matter of *Whirlpool. It was also
pointed out that the judgment is sub si/entio because the
provisions of the Act, specially the provisions of Section
2(v) of the Act, were not taken into consideration in the    F
said case. In the context of sub silentio reference was
made to the judgment of this Court in **Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, which according to the respondent,
is that a sub silentio judgment does not have a binding
precedent. By pointing out the same, the respondent          G
prayed that the case of *Whirlpool requires
reconsideration and, as a result, the present matter also
would be required to be considered by a larger Bench.
Though the decision in *Whirlpool was made in the
context of the Central Excise Act, it cannot be claimed      H
    712      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2011) 10 S.C.R.


A that the judgment In *Whirlpool has no bearing on the
  issues in these appeals. Inasmuch as the said decision
  was rendered by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges with
  reference to the very same Act and Rules, the issue
  raised in all these appeals have to be heard by a larger
B Bench. [Paras 17, 18] [721-A-G]
        *Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (2007)
    14 SCC 468 and **Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
    Gumam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101- referred to.
c                        Case Law Reference:
          (2007) 14 sec 468       referred to      Para 10, 11, 16,
                                                      17, 18
          (1989) 1 sec 101        referred to .    Para 17
D
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal '.No.
    1117 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 05.05.2006 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 120 of 2004.
E
                                   WITH
    C.A. Nos. 1118, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123 of 2010 &

    Crl. A. No. 118 of 2010.
F     Vijay Hansaria, U.U. Lalit, Shekhar, Naphade, K.V.
  Viswanathan, Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay Kharde, Asha
  Gopalan Nair, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Amit Singh, G. Sabharwal,
  Aneesh Sah, Brij Kisbore Sah, Pranab Kumar Mullick, Niraj
  Singh, Soma Mullick, Meenakshi Middha, Saneha Kalita, Kavita
G Wadia, Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Nagpal, Manu Nair, Surjendu
  Sankar Das, Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Ravinder Narain, Ajay
  Aggarwal, Mallika Joshi, Amrita Chatterjee, Rajan Narain,
  Navin Chawla, D.K. Singh, Gaurav Kaushik, Tushar Singh,
  Raghu Tandon, Pradeep Shukhla, S·.M. Jadhav, Amit Singh, G.
H Sabharwal, Aneesh Sah, Brij Kishore Sah, Sushma Suri,
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. SUBHASH 713
             ARJUNDAS KATARIA
Anitha Shenoy for the appearing parties.                              A
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. The principle question which
 arises in these appeals is as to what is the true scope and
 correct purport of the expression "commodity in packaged             B
 form" under Section 2(b) of the Standards of Weights and
 Measures Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act). In Civil Appeal No. 1117
 of 2010, the specific question is whether the sun glasses can
 be considered "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(1) of the
 Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities)             C
 Rules, 1977 (in short 'the Rules). In the connected appeals, the
 product includes Titan watches, fixed wireless phones, sun
 glasses, electrical goods, home appliances, consumer
 electronics and Samsung Microwave Oven. The State of
 Maharashtra is the appellant in all these appeals.                   D
        2. For convenience, let us briefly state the facts in Civil
· Appeal No. 1117 of 2010. According to the respondent, he is
  engaged in the business of trading in sun glasses and has a
  counter on commission basis at Globus Stores, Sandra. On
  17.10.2003, the Inspector of Legal Metrology/Appellant No. 2        E
  herein visited the store and seized five Sun glasses belonging
  to the respondent and issued a seizure memo. At the time of
  search, it was explained to him that the sun glasses delivered
  to them were in polythene bags and some in individual
  openable pouches. According to them, sometimes, at the time         F
  of delivery, they are put in a pouch whichls normally on display
  for the customers to identify for the purpose of purchase. It was
  also explained that the package, therefore, is only a package
  for protection or safety of the article. The value of sun glasses
  whether inside the package or outside tl'te package does not        G
  alter if the package is opened nor does it undergo a perceptive
  modification on the package being opened. The testing of the
  sunglasses by the customer is for the purpose of determining
  whether he should purchase the same considering various
   sizes, designs, colours, aesthetic value, makes and companies      H
    714      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011) 10 S.C.R.


A   and after trying and ascertaining the suitability, quality etc.
         3. It is the grievance of the respondent that in spite of
    proper explanation, the Inspector/Appellant No. 2 seized the sun
    glasses for allegedly not declaring name and address of the
    manufacturer/month and year of manufacturing which is in
8
    violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is the claim
    of the respondent that by force they were compelled to write a
    letter to the authorities for compounding the offence and
    directing them to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compounding fee by order
    dated 30.1 O.2003.
c
        4. Aggrieved by the action of the appellant, the respondent
  preferred Writ Petition No. 120 of 2004, inter alia, for quashing
  of the seizure memo dated 17.10.2003 and also for the order
  dated 30.10.2003 for the payment of compounding fee. By
0 order dated 05.05.2006, the High Court, by appreciating the
  submissions made on behalf of the respondent, allowed the writ
  petition holding that the sun glasses, whether it be a frame or
  glass is not a "pre-packed commodity" within the definition of
  the expression "pre-packed commodity" under Rule 2(1) of the
E Rules. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the
  appellant-State preferred the present appeal by way of special
  leave petition.
       5. It is the stand of the respondent that the Act brings in
  its purview not all the items which are kept in the package to
F protect or for other reasons but is limited to packaged
  commodity as defined under the Act, which are being sold by
  weights or measures or numbers, and which are being sold in
  a packed form without unpacking such packaged commodities
  at the time of sale and the sun glasses do not come within the
G ambit of definition of "commodity in packaged form" in terms
  of Section 2(b) of the Act nor under the purview of "pre-packed
  commodity'' under Rule 2(1) of the Rules. It is also highlighted
  that sunglasses cannot be sold in the packaged condition
  without opening the packaging since the customer will buy only
H after comparing, trying it out for size and after checking its
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. SUBHASH 715
    ARJUNDAS KATARIA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

aesthetic value, the quality of glass and vision, looks etc and    A
therefore, the sun glasses can never be and are not sold in
packaged condition.
      6. We are concerned about Section 2(b) of the Act and
2(1) of the Rules which read as under:-
                                                                   B
    "2(b) "Commodity in packaged form" means commodity
    packaged, whether in any bottle, tin, wrapper or otherwise,
    in units suitable for sale, whether wholesale or retail."
    "2(1) "pre-packed commodity", means a commodity, which         C
    without the purchaser being present, is placed in a
    package of whatever nature, whether sealed or opened,
    so that the commodity 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;                                   D
    Explanation I - Where, by reason merely of the opening of
    a package no alteration is caused to the value, quantity,
    nature or characteristic of the commodity contained ·
    therein, such commodity shall be deemed, for the purposes E
    of these rules, to be a pre-packed commodity, for example,
    an electric bulb or fluorescent tube is a pre-packed
    commodity, even though the package containing it is
    required to be opened for testing the commodity.

     Explanation II. ..... ."                                      F
    7. Considering the above definition, the High Court
observed that the expression "pre-packaged commodity" would
be applicable to:-
     (i) commodities which are packed, and                         G
     (ii) the commodity packaged has a pre-determined value
     and
     (iii) that value cannot be altered without the package sold
     being opened at the time of sale, or                          H
    716      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 10 S.C.R.

A         (iv) the product undergoes a modification on being opened.
       8. As rightly argued by Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned
  senior counsel for the respondent, in the case of sun glasses,
  whether they come in a box or not, insofar as the retailer is
  concerned, at the time when they are being sold to the
8 consumer, are not in packaged form. Even if we hold that they
  come in a packaged form, before they are sold to the consumer
  by removing them from the box, the value does not alter nor
  does the product undergo a perceptive modification and as
  such the provisions, particularly, under Section 2(b) of the Act
C are not applicable. Further, as rightly observed by the High
  Court, the explanation to the said Rufe is also not attracted
  because the package is not opened for the purpose of testing
  as in the case of electric bulbs. ft was asserted by the learned
  senior counsel for the respondent that the sun glasses are
D tested by the buyer for his suitability.
       9. Similar arguments were advanced by the respective
  counsel relating to their respective products. On careful scrutiny
  of the provisions referred above, it is clear that the expression
E "pre-packed commodity" would be applicable to commodities
  which are packed and the commodity packaged has a pre-
  determined value and that value cannot be altered without the
  package sold being opened at the time of sale or the product
  undergoes a modification on being opened. We are also of the
  view that the Explanation I to Rule 2(1) of the Rules is not
F attracted because the package is not opened for the purpose
  of testing as in the case of electric bulbs. We fully agree that
  the sun glasses are tested by the buyer for his suitability, and
  therefore, sun glasses, whether it be a frame or glass is not a
  pre-packed commodity within the definition of the expression
G "pre-packed" under Rule 2(1) of the Rules, hence, the High
  Court is fully justified in quashing the notice and allowing the
  writ petition filed by the respondent. We also agree with the
  similar arguments advanced relating to other. products
  mentioned above.
H
 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. SUBHASH 717
     ARJUNDAS KATARIA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant.State           A
submitted that the very same Rules fell for interpretation before
this Court in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. vs. Union of
India and Ors. (2007) 14 SCC 468. Heavily relying on the said
decision, the learned counsel submitted that sun glasses are
"pre-packed commodity" within the meaning of the Act and the         B
Rules. He also submitted that the other products also would
come within the above mentioned definition and by applying the
ratio in that decision prayed for setting aside the impugned
order of the High Court.
      11. In order to consider the stand of the State, let us        C
consider the factual position and the ratio laid down in Whirlpool
(supra). The short question in that matter was as to whether
'refrigerator' is a "packaged commodity" or not. The appellant-
Whirlpool was engaged in manufacturing refrigerators. The
Central Government issued Notification No. 9 of 2000 dated           D
01.03.2000 under Sections 4-A(1) and (2) of the Central Excise
Act and specified the goods mentioned in Column 3 of the said
notification. Entry 48 pertains to the refrigerators whereby the
refrigerators invited valuation under Section 4-A of the Central
Excise Act with the abatement of 40%. Sections 4-A(1) and (2)        E
of the Central Excise Act require that any goods included in the
notification shall be valued on the basis of the maximum retail
price (for short "MRP") which is required to be printed on the
packages of such goods. The five conditions for inclusion of
the goods are:                                                       F
     "(i) The goods should be excisable goods;
     (ii) They should be such as are sold in the package;
     (iii) There should be requirement in the Act or the Rules       G
     made thereunder or any other law to declare the price of
     such goods relating to their retail price on the package;
     (iv) The Central Government must have specified such
     goods by notification in the Official Gazette;
                                                                     H
    718       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 10 S.C.R.


A         (v) The valuation of such goods would be as per 'the
          declared retail sale price on the packages less the amount
          of abatement."
          12. The appellant felt aggrieved by the fact that the
    refrigerators were covered and included in the aforementioned
8
    Notification dated 01.03.2000 as, according to the appellant,
    the refrigerator is not such a commodity which is sold in a
    package. Significantly, the appellant is not aggrieved by its
    valuation being under Sections 4-A(1) and (2) of the Act. The
C   only complaint that the appellant made is that the appellant
    should not be required to print MRP on the package of the
    refrigerator manufactured by it. The appellant, therefore, filed
    a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
    praying, inter alia, for a writ of certiorarified mandamus
    restraining the authorities for taking any coercive measures
D   against the appellant or its Directors, officers, servants or
    agents for not declaring MRP on the refrigerators manufactured
    and cleared by the appellant from its factory. The Notification
    dated 01.03.2000 was challenged to this limited extent only.
    Before the High Court, the appellant pleaded that refrigerator
E   is not such a commodity which can be termed to be a
    "packaged commodity" and further the provisions of the Act or
    the Rules made thereunder are not applicable to the refrigerator
    at all. It was, therefore, prayed that the notification was liable
    to be quashed only to the extent that it included the refrigerator
F   and the requirement of declaring MRP on the refrigerator.
       13. The respondent authorities, however, maintained that
  the refrigerator was in fact sold in a package of polythene cover,
  thermocol, hardboard cartons, etc. and thus it falls in the
  category of "pre-packed commodity". On that basis it was
G contended that since every packaged commodity was included
  in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, there can be no
  escape from printing MRP on the package. The High Court
  rejected the contention and dismissed the petition filed by the
  appellant.
H
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. SUBHASH 719
    ARJUNDAS KATARIA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

       14. It was vehemently contended before a three-Judge         A
Bench by the counsel for the appellant that a 'refrigerator' is
not sold in a "packaged form". It was further contended that even
if it is sold in the packaged form, when it is displayed by the
dealers, it is not in the packaged form and the customers can
take the inspection of the refrigerator and at least for that       B
purpose the package has to be opened and, therefore, there
would be no question of the refrigerator being included in the
Act or the Rules made thereunder. Rejecting the said
submission as incorrect, this Court concluded as under:- ,
    "5. It was not disputed before the High Court and also          C
    before us that the appellant manufacturer has to sell the
    refrigerators which are packed in polythene cover,
    thermocol, etc. and placed in hardboard cartons. In fact the
    appellant had so pleaded before the High Court in para 3
    to which a reference has been made by the High Court.           D
    Once that position is clear, then the refrigerator clearly
    becomes a commodity in the packaged form. The .use of
    the term "or otherwise" in the definition would suggest that
    a commodity if packed in any manner in units suitable for
    sale, whether wholesale or retail, becomes a "commodity         E
    in packed form .. ."                                ·
    15. After adverting to Rule 2(1) "pre-packed commodity"
and Explanation I, their Lordships have held that refrigerator is
covered under the term "pre-packed commodity" and
concluded that:                                                     F

    "6 ..... Even if the package of the refrigerator is required
    to be opened for testing, even then the refrigerator would
    continue to be a "pre-packed commodity". There are
    various types of packages defined under the Rules and           G
    ultimately Rule 3 specifically suggests that the provisions
    of Chapter II would apply to the packages intended for
    "retail sale" and the expression "package" would be
    construed accordingly.
    7. It is not disputed before us that the sale of the            H
    720       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 10 S.C.R.


A         refrigerator is covered under the "retail sale". Once that
          position is clear Rule 6 would specifically include the
          refrigerator and would carry along with it the requirements
          by that Rule of printing certain information including the
          sale price on the package. Thus it is clear that by being
B         sold by the manufacturer in a packaged form, the
          refrigerator would be covered by the provisions of the
          SWM Act and the SWM (PC) Rules and it would be
          imperative that MRP has to be printed in terms of Rule 6
          which has been referred to above.
c         8. The High Court has also made a reference to Rule 2(1)
          and more particularly, the Explanation to which we have
          referred to earlier. In our view the reliance by the High
          Court on Rule 2(1) is correct. Learned counsel tried to urge
          that every customer would like to open the package before
D         finalising to purchase the refrigerator.. He would at least get
          it tested and for that purpose the package would be
          destroyed. That may be so out it does not change the
          position as rightly observed by the High Court.
          9. It was tried to be suggested that MRP would be different
E
          depending upon the area in which it is being sold. That may
          be so, however, that cannot absolve the manufacturer from
          displaying the price i.e. MRP on the package in which the
          refrigerator is packed. Whatever be the situation, it is clear
          that a refrigerator is a "packaged commodity" and thus is
F         covered under the SWM Act and the SWM (PC) Rules
          and, therefore, the Notification dated 1-3-2000 cannot be
          faulted on that ground ... ."
        16. By heavily relying on the above dictum with reference
G to the very same provisions by this Court in the Whirlpool
   (supra), the appellant-State submitted that in view of substantive
 · definition of the main section read with the Rules, the sun
   glasses are "pre-packed commodity" within the meaning of the
   Act and the Rules thereof. The appellant-State also submitted
H that similar analogy is to be applied for other products also.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. v. SUBHASH 721
    ARJUNDAS KATARIA [P. SATHASIVAM,• J.]
     17. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent          A
vehemently submitted that the ratio of the judgment in Whirlpool
(supra) is not at all applicable to these cases, firstly, because
the issue in that case was in context of Central Excise Act and,
secondly, because none of the aspects stated have been taken
into consideration by this Court in the matter of Whirlpool           B
(supra). It is also pointed out that the judgment is sub silentio
because the provisions of the Act, specially the provisions of
Section 2(v) of the Act, have not been taken into consideration
in the said case. In the context of sub silentio reference is made
to the judgment of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi       c
vs. Gumam Kaur, (1989) 1 SCC 101, which according to the
counsel for the respondent, is that a sub silentio judgment does
not have a binding precedent. By pointing out the same, the
counsel for the respondent prayed that the case of Whirlpool
(supra) requires reconsideration and, as a result, the present        0
matter also would be required to be considered by a larger
Bench.
      18. Though it was pointed out that the decision in Whirlpool
(supra) was made in the context of the Central Excise Act, we
have already extracted the question which fell for consideration,     E
relevant provisions from the Act and the Rules, discussion as
to the applicability, and the ultimate conclusion in para 9,
namely, "whatever be the situation, it is clear that a refrigerator
is a "packaged commodity" and thus is covered under the Act
and the Rules." In view of the same, it cannot be claimed that        F
the judgment in Whirlpool (supra) has no bearing on the issues
in these appeals. Inasmuch as the said decision was rendered
by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges with reference to the very
same Act and Rules, we are of the view that the issue raised
in all these appeals have to be heard by a larger Bench.              G
    19. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place all these
appeals before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for listing
before a larger Bench.

8.8.B.                       Matters referred to Larger Bench.        H