Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SIDHOSONS & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Decided
28 October 1986
Judges listed
M.P. THAKKAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[1987] 1 S.C.R. 82 · 1986 INSC 221
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

THAKKAR,•J. The question raised in this Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as regards the determination of the market value of the goods manufactured by the petitioner company for the purposes of computation of the excise duty leviable on the same. The petitioners (manufacturers) are manufacturing electrical goods under a contract with another company known as the Bajaj Electricals Ltd. (here-after referred to as buyers). The agreement between the parties provides for the buyers having the right to reject the goods if the goods are not in accordance with the buyers' specifications or do not come up to the stipulated standard of quality. After the manufactured goods are tested, approved and accepted, by the buyers the manufacturers apply the label of the brand name of the buyers (in this case 'Bajaj') on the manufactured goods. The petitioners contend

pp. 83–84, margin F

that the market value of the goods manufactured by the petitioners should be assessed at the price at which the goods are ageed to be sold under the agreement between the manufacturers and the buyers. On the other hand the respondent conte.nts that the excise duty must be levied on the basis of the market value fetched by the sale of these goods by the buyers to their wholesalers. The goods manufactured by

p. 84, margin A

the Petitioner Company, which are accepted by the buyers and to \ which the brand name label 'Bajaj' is applied are sold by the manufacturers to the buyers at the stipulated price and to none-else. They are not at all sold in the open market by the manufacturers. The right to sell these goods with the brand name is solely and exclusively that of the buyers having regard to the fact that they alone are the owners of

p. 84, margin B

the brand name 'Bajaj'. The price fetched by the goods manufactured by the petitioner company is the price of the electrical goods 'sans' the brand name. And that should be the market value for the purposes of assessing the excise duty payable by the petitioner company which manufactures the excisable goods. The enhancement in the value of the goods by reasons of the application of the brand name is because of

p. 84, margin C

the augmentation attributable to the value of the goodwill of the brand name which does not belong to the manufacturers and which added market value does not accrue lo the petitioner company or go ii:ito its coffers. It accrues to the buyers to whom the brand name belongs and to whom to fruits of the goodwill belong. Excise duty is payable on the market value fetched by the goods, in the wholesale market at the factory gate manufactured by the manufacturers. It cannot be assessed on the basis of the market value obtained by the buyers who also add to the value of the manufactured goods the value of their own property in the goodwill of the 'brand name'-The Petitioners are theFefore right and the respondents wrong. This point is covered by earlier decisions of this Court, namely, (1) Union of India v. Cibatul Ltd., [1985] 22 E.L.T. 302, (2) Joint Secretary to the Government of India v. Food specialities Ltd., [ 1985) 22 E.L.T. 324 and (3) Civil Appeal No. 1496 of 1977 disposed of by a Bench of three Judges of this Court by its judgment dated 3rd April, 1986. The petition must therefore be allowed. The respondents shall levy excise duty on the basis of the price charged by the manufacturers to the buyers namely M/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. A word of caution is however called for.-Our decision must be understood correctly-not misunderstood conveniently. We, therefore, clarify that our pronouncement will not enable a manufacturer who manufactures and sells his goods under his own brand name or under a brand name which he has acquired a right to use. In such a case the sale price fetched,by sales effected by him under such brand name in wholesale will be the basis for computation of excise duty payable by him-So also nothing said herein will come to the rescue of a brand name owner who himself is the manufacturer of goods or ·to sales effected in favour of 'related' persons as defined by the Act. The Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Bank guarantee, if any, furnished by the petitioners in the context of the present Writ Petition will stand discharged. No Other point has been argued. The petition is allowed and the Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

pp. 84–85, margin D

Writ Petitions Nos. 1686-1691 of 1979 raise the same point in the context of other brand names. These petitions will also stand disposed of in terms of this order with the same direction regarding computation of levy and discharge of guarantee bonds and with no order as to costs. M.L.A. Petition allowed.

p. 85, margin C