TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (3) TMI 517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taxable turnover of Rs. 3,85,82,493.85 under the KST Act. For the purpose of the CST Act, he determined the taxable turnover at Rs. 16,136.88 which was subsequently rectified substituting the total turnover relating to bottles used for filling liquors by Rs. 2,14,977.45 in place of Rs. 2,41,977.45 as originally assessed. On May 3, 1986, the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) inspected the business premises of the respondent. Thereafter, on processing of the documents seized thereto, reopened the proceedings under section 12A of the KST Act and made an order on August 19, 1989. He also revised the assessments made both under the KST and CST Acts. The revised total turnover as redetermined was at Rs. 26,50,28,634.69. For purpose of CST Act, an order was made on August 19, 1989 under section 9(2) of the CST Act read with section 12A(1A) of the KST Act levying penalty in a sum of Rs. 40,00,000. The matter was carried in appeal. The appeal was allowed in part while the penalties were set aside. The matter was carried in further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent as stated earlier. Hence, this petition which is filed on behalf of the State.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... owns a distillery at Hallikhad in Bidar District in the State of Karnataka and has a licence to run a distillery under the Karnataka Excise Act. There are certain definition clauses in the agreement. Spirit is defined as potable alcohol spirit manufactured and distilled out of molasses and in accordance with the specifications and tolerances specified in appendix A to the agreement. Distillery is defined to be the distillery run by the IBDL at Hallikhad in Bidar District and also includes the potable liquor manufactured and/or other distillery at any other place as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties from time to time. IMFL products would mean products manufactured by IBDL under the agreement for supply to Shaw Wallace and Company, that is, respondent herein, consisting of the spirit as defined earlier and blended and bottled in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. Clause (2) provides, IBDL will manufacture spirit at its distillery in such quantity as may be required by the parties subject to a minimum of 3,50,000 bulk litres in a calendar year for the purpose of utilising such spirit for the IMFL products to be marketed by Shaw Wallace under the trade name of "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s representative sent for this purpose from time to time or by the technical representative of Shaw Wallace stationed at the distillery. Blending will be done after the quality of the spirit is accepted by Shaw Wallace. Once the blending is completed, India Brewery & Distillery will not be liable to Shaw Wallace for the quality of the spirit which shall be deemed to have been accepted by Shaw Wallace." Clause (9) provides that IBDL will reduce the spirit to the required strength for which purpose demineralised water is used which conforms to the specifications and tolerances mentioned in appendix B which thereafter will be stored either in an anodized aluminium tank or in a stainless steel tank. Clause (10) is also very important from the point of view of finding the nature of the transactions between the parties. Therefore, we set out clause (10). "India Brewery & Distillery shall for and on behalf of Shaw Wallace manufacture IMFL products from the spirit supplied hereunder to Shaw Wallace by India Brewery and obtain at its cost such licences as may be necessary for the manufacture, blending, bottling, sale and delivery of IMFL products to Shaw Wallace and this will incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uantities of spirit for the manufacture, blending and bottling, for Shaw Wallace. Clause (24) among other things, provides for complying with the excise formalities which shall be the responsibility of IBDL which will include the registration of the labels, for manufacture, blending, bottling and supplying of IMFL products to the respondent. Clause (25) provides for the price at which the respondent would purchase IMFL products from IBDL which is Rs. 27 per case for products produced with rectified spirit and Rs. 31 per case for products wholly produced with extra neutral alcohol. The price is also inclusive of sales tax, excise duty, export fee, octroi, insurance, excise escort charges and other tax or duty as may be applicable or that may become applicable from time to time. It also provides therein, except as provided elsewhere, losses until the IMFL product leaves the distillery will be on account of IBDL. There are the usual indemnity clauses provided, delivery schedule and provisions relating to packing under clauses (26), (27) and (28). Clause (29) provides for reprocessing and is of importance in the interpretation of the agreement. Therefore, we reproduce the said clause: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ply of essence for the preparation of blend by the technical representative of the respondentcompany would not take away the character of sale in IMFL with reference to the concept of supply of "principal material". The value of essence supplied by the respondent is insignificant in value and such an action aimed at guarding their secrecy relating to various brands cannot be deemed to be a manufacturing activity of IMFL and to presume purchase of spirit. Under the excise enactment, IBDL was authorised only to sell IMFL and not spirit and what is manufactured and sold by IBDL to the respondent was not spirit but IMFL. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Joint Secretary to the Government of India v. Food Specialities Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 685 that the value of the goods sold by the manufacturer to the trade mark owner constitutes the value for the purpose of excise duty. Reference was also made to the decision in the case of Union of India v. Cibatul Limited AIR 1986 SC 281 which action arose under the Central Excises and Salt Act, wherein it was held that though the goods were manufactured to the programme drawn by the buyer and the seller and the buyer was obliged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticles or sedimentation, the respondent reserve the right to reject the IMFL manufactured by IBDL, and what is required in the agreement is the manufacture of IMFL to the standard set by the respondent and therefore, there is no camouflage in the nature of the transaction indicated in the agreement. Therefore, it is contended that there is no substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the State. 8.. From the terms of the agreement, it is clear IBDL will manufacture spirit for the purpose of utilising the same for IMFL to be marketed by the respondent under its trade mark. One part of the agreement relates to manufacture of spirit in the distillery of IBDL. There is necessary infrastructure and facilities to manufacture spirit. On the manufacture of spirit, respondent through its technical representative, gets it checked and tested regarding the quality of spirit and in the event any defects are found, the same would be rejected which IBDL undertakes to take back the spirit and supply spirit of quality acceptable to the technical representative. Once such quality of spirit as approved by the technical representative is manufactured, the respondent's representative would do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. In the present case, all that the manufacturer-IBDL can do is to reprocess the goods if the same are rejected as containing any foreign particles or sedimentation or if it is not of the required strength and it is only in cases of sedimentation or for other reasons they have to take back the stock and examine the causes of such sedimentation and apportion the cost for taking back the same and reprocess the same. When these are the terms under which the goods are manufactured, it becomes clear the quality prescribed is only towards the work done by IBDL for and on behalf of the respondent. Manufacturer has absolutely no control over such goods. Therefore, the principle laid down in Cibatul's case AIR 1986 SC 281 cannot be applied to the facts of this case. The next decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is Central India Machinery Manufacturing Company Ltd.'s case [1977] 40 STC 246 (SC). In that case, the raw materials consisted of three categories in the manufacture of wagons. While the first category was admittedly the property of the railways, the third category thereto was at all times, the material of the company. The controversy was only in relation t....