https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41041 In a franchise bottling arrangement, the bottling company was the manufacturer for excise purposes where it owned and controlled the plant, procured the raw materials, and carried out production in its own premises with its own labour. The trade mark owner's supervision was limited to quality, specifications, and brand protection, which did not amount to control over the manufacturing process. The excise authorities' view that the trade mark owner was the manufacturer was therefore unsustainable. The petitioners were entitled to concessional excise duty under the notification and to the consequential refund. en-us Thu, 15 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 May 2010 12:23:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41041 In a franchise bottling arrangement, the bottling company was the manufacturer for excise purposes where it owned and controlled the plant, procured the raw materials, and carried out production in its own premises with its own labour. The trade mark owner's supervision was limited to quality, specifications, and brand protection, which did not amount to control over the manufacturing process. The excise authorities' view that the trade mark owner was the manufacturer was therefore unsustainable. The petitioners were entitled to concessional excise duty under the notification and to the consequential refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Oct 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41041