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

JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD.

Decided
30 September 1985
Judges listed
P.N. BHAGWATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 165 · 1985 INSC 213

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments 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.

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.

p. 166, margin D

The respondent, Messrs. Food Specialities Limited, Moga is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It entered into a number of agreements with Messrs. Nestle's Products (India) Limited, a subsidiary of a foreign company, Messrs. Nestle's Holdings Limited, to manufacture for and on behalf of Messrs. Nestle's Products (India) Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Nestle's") sweetened condensed milk, soluble coffee, baby milk food, milk powders and infant cereal foods for sale in India by Nestle's under certain trade-marks in respect of which the latter was registered as the sole registered user in India. The agreement s ti pula ted that the respooden t would manufacture the goods and supply them to Nestle's in quantities as Nestle's might specify from time to time subject a prescribed minimum and maximum, and Nestle's was obliged to the products so manufactured by the respondent. The products were manufactured by the respondent in accordance with detailed quality specifications supplied by Nestle's, and the price of products was determined under the agreements free on rail at or free on lory at factory. The respondent enjoyed no interest the trade marks and labels and undertook not to sell any of those products to any person other than Nestle's.

pp. 166–167, margin F

The products manufactured by the respondent were subject excise duty under the said Excises and Salt Act, 1944. respondent disputed the value of the goods determined by excise auth9rities for the purpose of the levy, and a number questions were raised in that context. The controversy processed through the statutory channels provided by the Act and ultimately the respondent filed writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court found in favour of the respondent and quashed orders of the Excise authorities and the Government of India impugned in the writ petitions.

p. 167, margin B

In these appeals the ' only question pressed before us by· learned Attorney General on behalf of the appellant is that value of the goods sold by the respondent to Nestle's should, the purpose of levy of excise duty, include the vlaue of trade marks under which the goods are sold in the market and the vlaue of such trade marks should be added to the wholesale price for which the goods are sold by the respondent to Nestle's. It is urged by the learned Attorney General that the High Court erred in holding that the value of the trade marks cannot form component of the vlaue of the goods for the purpose of assessment of excise duty. We are of opinion that the High Court was right in the view it took and the appeal must fail.

p. 167, margin C

It may be noticed that the respondent manufactures goods according to the specificatj.ons supplied· by Nestle's affixes the trade marks of Nestle's on the goods and supplies the same to Nestle's at a wholeSale price free on rail at Moga free on lorry at factory stipulated under the agreements Nestle's. What are sold and supplied by the respondent are goods manufactured by i. t with the trade marks affixed to them and it the whole sale price of such goods that must determine the value for the purpose of assessment of excise dutye It is immaterial that the trade marks belong to Nestle's· What is material is l'<estle' s have anthorised the respondent to affix the trade marks on the goods manufactured by it and it is the goods with the trade marks affixed to them that are sold by the respondent to Nestle's. There can therefore be no doubt that the wholesale price at which the goods with the trade marks affixed to them are sold by the respondent to Nestle's as stipulted under the agreements would be the value of the goods for the purpose of excise duty. That is the price at which the respondent sells the goods to Nestle's in the course of wholesale trade and we fail to see how the value of the trade marks could be added to the wholesale price for the purpos~ of determining the value of the goods for the purpose of levy of excise duty.

pp. 167–168, margin F

nre sai:.isfied upon the particular facts of this case that the valu~ of Nestle's trade marks cannot be added to the wholesale price charged by the respondent to Nestle's for the purp•)Se of computing the value of the goods manufactured by the respondeat in the assessment to excise duty. - The appeals are dismissed with costs.

p. 168

Appeals dismissed.

p. 168