TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of petitioner in '77' soft drink manufacturing agreement dispute, entitled to exemption.</h1> <h3>STEEL CITY BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS</h3> STEEL CITY BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 147 (Pat.) Issues:Interpretation of manufacturing agreement for soft drink '77' | Entitlement to exemption under Central Excise RulesAnalysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the manufacturing agreement between a private limited company (petitioner) and another company (respondent No. 5) for producing a non-alcoholic beverage known as '77.' The petitioner sought a writ to quash an order denying them an exemption under the Central Excise Rules. The key issue was whether the petitioner was manufacturing '77' on its own account or on behalf of respondent No. 5.The petitioner argued that they were the actual manufacturer of '77' as per the terms of the agreement, and therefore, entitled to the exemption. They highlighted their control over the factory, purchase of necessary ingredients, and the absence of control by respondent No. 5. Respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner was manufacturing on behalf of respondent No. 5 based on specific terms in the agreement.The court analyzed the agreement terms, emphasizing that the petitioner purchased the composition from respondent No. 5, used their trademark, but operated independently in manufacturing and selling the beverage. The court also referenced the definition of 'manufacturer' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to determine the petitioner's entitlement to the exemption.Referring to relevant notifications and legal precedents, the court concluded that the petitioner was not acting as an agent of respondent No. 5 and was, in fact, the manufacturer of '77.' The court noted that respondent No. 5 did not hold a manufacturing license and did not meet the criteria to be considered a manufacturer under the Act. The court cited previous judgments supporting their decision and criticized the respondents for contesting the application despite established legal interpretations.In the final judgment, the court allowed the application, quashed the order denying exemption, and held that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption under the Central Excise Rules. The respondents were directed to pay the costs of the application to the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
