Above the MRP, but below the law: Can restaurants charge extra for chilling carbonated drinks as well?
Abstract
Carbonated drinks that we see being served in restaurants almost always carry a maximum retail price printed on the bottles. Yet, customers are routinely charged amounts above that figure, often justified under the pretext of “cold storage” or “chilling” charges. The question is, is this practice legal or not? To examine that, this article utilizes the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as the primary framework, while analyzing carbonated drinks as “pre-packaged properties” and what rules lay down prohibition on selling above MRP. Another important aspect that is dealt here is the application of these rules to restaurants exactly as they apply to any other retailer. The article also examines the often-misunderstood exemption under the Rule 26(b), with an older supreme court ruling completely contrasted by a recent consumer commission decision.
Introduction
Picture this, you sit down at a restaurant on a hot afternoon and order a chilled Coca-Cola. The sealed bottled has a printed label that says “MRP Rs. 40, inclusive of all taxes.” But in the bill, the same bottle is charged for Rs. 70. The waiter explains that the extra amount covers “service and chilling”. This is a usual scenario in restaurants across India, raising the deceptive question: can a restaurant charge more than maximum retail price for a sealed carbonated drink on grounds that it has been chilled or stored in a refrigerator by the restaurant?
This might sound like a trivial issue. However, upon analysing, we come across basic principles of consumer protection law: that what does maximum retail price actually mean, who is bound by it and whether the restaurant can convert the sale office separately manufactured product into a “service” a simply by adding ice to it.
This article specifically focuses on sealed, pre-packaged carbonated beverages such as sodas, that are manufactured and sealed by companies like PepsiCo and are sold in dining establishments. It does not include freshly prepared drinks like lemonade or lassi, that are not pre-packaged, hence do not include MRP on them at all.
PART II: Analysis – Background and Statute
2.1 what does “MRP” actually mean?
The Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is the highest amount as set by government authorities that Indian customers may be charged. Rule 2(m) of the Legal Metrology Act (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 defines “retail sale price” as the maximum price at which a commodity in packaged form may be sold to a consumer, and requires it to be printed in the form of “Maximum or Max. retail price Rs… inclusive of all taxes”.
The phrase “inclusive of all taxes” emphasises that the ultimate price printed on the bottle, not a base figure to which additions like GST, service charges etc. can be made. The terminology “maximum” itself indicates the upper ceiling, including all taxes to be made.
2.2 Rule 18(2)- The Core Prohibition
This definition of the MRP is turned into an enforceable rule under the Rule 18(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, which states that no retail dealer, or any person including manufacturing, packing, importing and wholesale dealers, shall sell any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding its retail sale price.
Also, this provision does not stand alone but is accompanied by Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 that requires pre-packaged commodity to carry prescribed declarations on the packaging. Further, Section 36 prescribes escalating fines for non-compliance with those declarations. This means that selling above declared MRP is non-conformity with the rules. Section 12 declares any “custom, usage or practice” that allows a person to receive more than what is due as void. If any restaurant claims charging extra for “chilling” the drinks as a long-standing trade practice of theirs, it will still be rendered legally irrelevant by Section 12.
2.3 Is there an exemption to this? If yes, what are the limits?
Rule 26(b) of the PC Rules provides that nothing contained in the rules applies to any package that contained fast food items that are packed by a restaurant or hotel. It is important to note that this clause covers situations where the restaurant itself does the packing of the food, for example, sealing biryani containers that has been prepared by the kitchen in a restaurant. However, a sealed bottle of Coca-Cola is a fundamentally different case. It was manufactured, filled, sealed and labelled before even entering the restaurant’s premises. The restaurant did not “pack” it in a sense the Rules recognise; it merely stored, chilled, and served it. Rule 26(b) has no application to such a bottle, because the restaurant did not “pack” it in any sense the Rules recognise; it only stored, chilled, and served it.
Part III: Main Analysis and Case Studies
3.1 The “Service Charge” Defence held by Restaurants
Restaurants commonly justify the extra amount by saying that they charge for “service” of chilling it, storing it, and bringing it to the table. Upon closer examination, this argument does not suffice for long. A 250 ml bottle of cola, for example, doesn’t change in any legal way upon being taken out of the fridge. The composition, packaging, and declared MRP remain same as before. Comparing to a fresh preparation like lemonade or lassi; not being a “packaged commodity”, the restaurant has the freedom to charge it as it wishes. Further, under Section 2(47)(i) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, “unfair trade practices” are defined to include materially misleading the public as to the price at which a product is ordinarily sold. A customer buying a bottle at Rs. 40 MRP, but is charged Rs. 70 for the same, has been misled about the price, with no separate disclosure of “chilling charges”.
3.2 Two Conflicting Signals by the Case Laws
Upon referring to judicial precedents, we find two judgements decided under different statutory regimes referring to this problem.
The first is the Supreme Court’s decision in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India v. Union of India 2018 (2) SCC 97, which arose from enforcement action against hotels and restaurants for charging above MRP on bottled water. The Delhi High Court held that such charging does not violate the law, reasoning that the statute, Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, governed what is printed on a package, not what the hotel ultimately charges its guests. This view was further upheld by the Supreme Court as well. However, this case was decided under a statute that is today replaced by the Legal Metrology framework. The Supreme Court never tested this reasoning against Rule 18(2) and Rule 26(b) of the 2011 Rules as they exist today.
The second pronouncement is far more recent i.e. Ishita Khanna v. Ghazal Restaurant (Case No: A/142/2025), decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in December, 2025. The complainant was charged with an inflated price despite MRP being tax-inclusive. The restaurant presented a similar defence of “service and ambience”. This defence was outrightly rejected by the Commission. Applying Rule 18(2) of the 2011 Rules directly, it held that a restaurant selling a sealed bottle acts as a retailer for that transition, that the MRP is a statutory ceiling inclusive of all taxes.
Part IV: Critical Analysis of the situation and Suggested Reforms
4.1 Why the Law goes Unenforced
Even after the statutory position being so clear, overcharging for chilled drinks remains widespread. Legal metrology officers (empowered under Section 15 to inspect premises and seize non-compliant goods), typically focus on manufacturing units and large retail outlets and not over restaurant bills. For ensuing a complaint, consumer forums are theoretically the right venue to do so, but people often find the effort to approach a District Commission over restaurant bills quite deterring. Consequently, even if the rule is easy to apply and clear, it is almost never invoked.
4.2 Suggested Reforms
Two modest interventions can affect the implementation positively-
First, a mandatory point of disclosure requiring restaurants to display a notice on the menu about charging packaged beverages strictly according to MRP printed on the bottle. This can help in preventing discreet overcharging into visible violation.
Providing further judicial clarity by a single authoritative supreme court ruling/order affirming the applicability of Rule 18(2) and Rule 26(b) of the current Rules to the specific situation of manufacturer-packed beverages sold in restaurants. This will aid in resolving any uncertainty that this article has identified and will help in providing clarity to both consumers and restaurants.
Part V: Conclusion
This article set out to answer whether a restaurant can charge above the MRP for a chilled, sealed drink? The answer, upon examination, is clear: NO. Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 prohibits selling a packaged commodity above the declared price. The exemption under Rule 26(b) covers only those goods that the restaurant has packed itself. The Chandigarh ruling shows consumers forums will apply the law as stated, what remains is for the willingness to become a routine, through better awareness and easier redressal mechanism at the disposal of consumers.
References and Citations
The Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Sections 2(1), 3, 12, 15, 18 and 36
The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, Rules 2(m), 18(2), 18(3) and 26(b)
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 2(6), 2(11), and 2(47)(i)
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India v. Union of India
Ishita Khanna v. Ghazal Restaurant
“Chandigarh Consumer Commission: Restaurants Cannot Charge Above MRP For Bottled Water,” BW Legal World, 25 December 2025, available at bwlegalworld.com.
Above the MRP, but below the Law: Can Restaurants Charge Extra for Chilling Carbonated Drinks as Well?
Above the MRP, but below the law: Can restaurants charge extra for chilling carbonated drinks as well?
Abstract
Carbonated drinks that we see being served in restaurants almost always carry a maximum retail price printed on the bottles. Yet, customers are routinely charged amounts above that figure, often justified under the pretext of “cold storage” or “chilling” charges. The question is, is this practice legal or not? To examine that, this article utilizes the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 as the primary framework, while analyzing carbonated drinks as “pre-packaged properties” and what rules lay down prohibition on selling above MRP. Another important aspect that is dealt here is the application of these rules to restaurants exactly as they apply to any other retailer. The article also examines the often-misunderstood exemption under the Rule 26(b), with an older supreme court ruling completely contrasted by a recent consumer commission decision.
Introduction
Picture this, you sit down at a restaurant on a hot afternoon and order a chilled Coca-Cola. The sealed bottled has a printed label that says “MRP Rs. 40, inclusive of all taxes.” But in the bill, the same bottle is charged for Rs. 70. The waiter explains that the extra amount covers “service and chilling”. This is a usual scenario in restaurants across India, raising the deceptive question: can a restaurant charge more than maximum retail price for a sealed carbonated drink on grounds that it has been chilled or stored in a refrigerator by the restaurant?
This might sound like a trivial issue. However, upon analysing, we come across basic principles of consumer protection law: that what does maximum retail price actually mean, who is bound by it and whether the restaurant can convert the sale office separately manufactured product into a “service” a simply by adding ice to it.
This article specifically focuses on sealed, pre-packaged carbonated beverages such as sodas, that are manufactured and sealed by companies like PepsiCo and are sold in dining establishments. It does not include freshly prepared drinks like lemonade or lassi, that are not pre-packaged, hence do not include MRP on them at all.
PART II: Analysis – Background and Statute
2.1 what does “MRP” actually mean?
The Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is the highest amount as set by government authorities that Indian customers may be charged. Rule 2(m) of the Legal Metrology Act (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 defines “retail sale price” as the maximum price at which a commodity in packaged form may be sold to a consumer, and requires it to be printed in the form of “Maximum or Max. retail price Rs… inclusive of all taxes”.
The phrase “inclusive of all taxes” emphasises that the ultimate price printed on the bottle, not a base figure to which additions like GST, service charges etc. can be made. The terminology “maximum” itself indicates the upper ceiling, including all taxes to be made.
2.2 Rule 18(2)- The Core Prohibition
This definition of the MRP is turned into an enforceable rule under the Rule 18(2) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, which states that no retail dealer, or any person including manufacturing, packing, importing and wholesale dealers, shall sell any commodity in packed form at a price exceeding its retail sale price.
Also, this provision does not stand alone but is accompanied by Section 18 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 that requires pre-packaged commodity to carry prescribed declarations on the packaging. Further, Section 36 prescribes escalating fines for non-compliance with those declarations. This means that selling above declared MRP is non-conformity with the rules. Section 12 declares any “custom, usage or practice” that allows a person to receive more than what is due as void. If any restaurant claims charging extra for “chilling” the drinks as a long-standing trade practice of theirs, it will still be rendered legally irrelevant by Section 12.
2.3 Is there an exemption to this? If yes, what are the limits?
Rule 26(b) of the PC Rules provides that nothing contained in the rules applies to any package that contained fast food items that are packed by a restaurant or hotel. It is important to note that this clause covers situations where the restaurant itself does the packing of the food, for example, sealing biryani containers that has been prepared by the kitchen in a restaurant. However, a sealed bottle of Coca-Cola is a fundamentally different case. It was manufactured, filled, sealed and labelled before even entering the restaurant’s premises. The restaurant did not “pack” it in a sense the Rules recognise; it merely stored, chilled, and served it. Rule 26(b) has no application to such a bottle, because the restaurant did not “pack” it in any sense the Rules recognise; it only stored, chilled, and served it.
Part III: Main Analysis and Case Studies
3.1 The “Service Charge” Defence held by Restaurants
Restaurants commonly justify the extra amount by saying that they charge for “service” of chilling it, storing it, and bringing it to the table. Upon closer examination, this argument does not suffice for long. A 250 ml bottle of cola, for example, doesn’t change in any legal way upon being taken out of the fridge. The composition, packaging, and declared MRP remain same as before. Comparing to a fresh preparation like lemonade or lassi; not being a “packaged commodity”, the restaurant has the freedom to charge it as it wishes. Further, under Section 2(47)(i) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, “unfair trade practices” are defined to include materially misleading the public as to the price at which a product is ordinarily sold. A customer buying a bottle at Rs. 40 MRP, but is charged Rs. 70 for the same, has been misled about the price, with no separate disclosure of “chilling charges”.
3.2 Two Conflicting Signals by the Case Laws
Upon referring to judicial precedents, we find two judgements decided under different statutory regimes referring to this problem.
The first is the Supreme Court’s decision in Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India v. Union of India 2018 (2) SCC 97, which arose from enforcement action against hotels and restaurants for charging above MRP on bottled water. The Delhi High Court held that such charging does not violate the law, reasoning that the statute, Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, governed what is printed on a package, not what the hotel ultimately charges its guests. This view was further upheld by the Supreme Court as well. However, this case was decided under a statute that is today replaced by the Legal Metrology framework. The Supreme Court never tested this reasoning against Rule 18(2) and Rule 26(b) of the 2011 Rules as they exist today.
The second pronouncement is far more recent i.e. Ishita Khanna v. Ghazal Restaurant (Case No: A/142/2025), decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in December, 2025. The complainant was charged with an inflated price despite MRP being tax-inclusive. The restaurant presented a similar defence of “service and ambience”. This defence was outrightly rejected by the Commission. Applying Rule 18(2) of the 2011 Rules directly, it held that a restaurant selling a sealed bottle acts as a retailer for that transition, that the MRP is a statutory ceiling inclusive of all taxes.
Part IV: Critical Analysis of the situation and Suggested Reforms
4.1 Why the Law goes Unenforced
Even after the statutory position being so clear, overcharging for chilled drinks remains widespread. Legal metrology officers (empowered under Section 15 to inspect premises and seize non-compliant goods), typically focus on manufacturing units and large retail outlets and not over restaurant bills. For ensuing a complaint, consumer forums are theoretically the right venue to do so, but people often find the effort to approach a District Commission over restaurant bills quite deterring. Consequently, even if the rule is easy to apply and clear, it is almost never invoked.
4.2 Suggested Reforms
Two modest interventions can affect the implementation positively-
First, a mandatory point of disclosure requiring restaurants to display a notice on the menu about charging packaged beverages strictly according to MRP printed on the bottle. This can help in preventing discreet overcharging into visible violation.
Providing further judicial clarity by a single authoritative supreme court ruling/order affirming the applicability of Rule 18(2) and Rule 26(b) of the current Rules to the specific situation of manufacturer-packed beverages sold in restaurants. This will aid in resolving any uncertainty that this article has identified and will help in providing clarity to both consumers and restaurants.
Part V: Conclusion
This article set out to answer whether a restaurant can charge above the MRP for a chilled, sealed drink? The answer, upon examination, is clear: NO. Rule 18(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 prohibits selling a packaged commodity above the declared price. The exemption under Rule 26(b) covers only those goods that the restaurant has packed itself. The Chandigarh ruling shows consumers forums will apply the law as stated, what remains is for the willingness to become a routine, through better awareness and easier redressal mechanism at the disposal of consumers.
References and Citations
The Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Sections 2(1), 3, 12, 15, 18 and 36
The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, Rules 2(m), 18(2), 18(3) and 26(b)
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 2(6), 2(11), and 2(47)(i)
Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India v. Union of India
Ishita Khanna v. Ghazal Restaurant
“Chandigarh Consumer Commission: Restaurants Cannot Charge Above MRP For Bottled Water,” BW Legal World, 25 December 2025, available at bwlegalworld.com.
Author: Vibhuti Jakhar