Can a Manufacturer fix different MRPs for same Quantity and Quality of a Product? NO says State Consumer Commission, Read Order

The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission while dismissing Pepsi's challenge to Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum's decision has affirmed that manufacturers cannot fix different MRPs for the same quantity and quality of a Product.

The District Forum in the impugned order had directed M/s PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. to fix the same MRP for the same quantity and quality of products such as water bottles, Pepsi Cans and Nimbooz bottles and print only one MRP for all the things of equal quantities.

The complainant who hails from NLSIU found that Pepsi was charging different for same product in same quantity. He submitted that 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. It was alleged by the complainants that, such variations have been done at the manufacturer’s level.

Contrary, OPs has contended that, there is no legal impediment for providing different MRPs for the same commodity. It was contended that, fixation of different MRPs on the same packaged commodity is even provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

It was submitted on their behalf, that though there is a prohibition under Standards of Weights and Measures Act that one cannot sell packaged commodity over and above the MRP declared on the said packaged commodity, but they have paid the excise duty as contemplated under Section-4A of the Central Excise Act on the commodities in question and hence prayed for allowing the appeal.

Countering this, the complainants-responents 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 was averred 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.

It was argued that 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. It was thus submitted 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.

"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," the written submission said.

The Court after analysing noted that Central Excise Act cannot in any manner permit manufacturers to mark different MRPs for the same quantity and quality of goods.

The Court rejected all claims of Pepsi and upheld the District Forum's decision:

"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."

Read Order Here:

Picture Source :