The products manufactured by the respondent were subject to excise duty under the said Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
The companytroversy was processed through the statutory channels provided by the Act and ultimately the respondent filed writ petitions in the High Court.
Parasaran, Attorney General of India , R.N. Poddar and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellants.
The respondent enjoyed numberinterest in the trade marks and labels and undertook number to sell any of those products to any person other than Nestles.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
1969, 4420, 4422 to 4424, 4429 to 4436.
1723 1736 of 1981 From, the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.1976 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Nos.
The respondent, Messrs. Food Specialities Limited, Moga is a companypany registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
It entered into a number of agreements with Messrs. Nestles Products India Limited, a subsidiary of a foreign companypany, Messrs. Nestles holdings Limited, to manufacture for and on behalf of Messrs. Nestles Products India Limited hereinafter referred to as Nestles sweetened companydensed milk, soluble companyfee, baby milk food, milk powders and infant cereal foods for sale in India by Nestles under certain trade marks in respect of which the latter was registered as the sole registered user in India.
A. PaIkhivala, Soli J. Sorabjee, Ravinder Narain, M. Ansari and Miss Rainu Walia for the Respondent.
4497 of 1975.
The products were manufactured by the respondent in accordance with detailed quality specifications supplied by Nestles, and the price of the products was determined under the agreements free on rail at Moga or free on lory at factory.
The agreement stipulated that the respondent would manufacture the goods and supply them to Nestles in such quantities as Nestles might specify from time to time subject to a prescribed minimum and maximum, and Nestles was obliged to buy the products so manufactured by the respondent.
The respondent disputed the value of the goods determined by the excise authorities for the purpose of the levy, and a number of questions were raised in that companytext.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated August 31, 1976 of the High Court of Punjab and haryana allowing a Group of writ petitions filed by the respondent against the levy of excise duty.
