1981 (1) TMI 67 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the manufacturer of the electrical appliances.
2. Validity of the orders passed by the Superintendent and the Central Government.
3. Entitlement to refund of the amount paid under protest.

Summary:

1. Determination of the Manufacturer:
The primary issue was whether the Company or Bajaj Electricals Ltd. could be considered the manufacturer of the electrical appliances. The Company argued that the transaction was purely on a principal-to-principal basis, with no control or supervision by Bajaj Electricals Ltd. over the manufacturing process. The Court noted that the terms and conditions of the agreement, including clauses on inspection, performance guarantee, and return of damaged goods, did not indicate any control by Bajaj Electricals Ltd. over the manufacturing process. The Court held that merely affixing the "Bajaj" brand name did not make Bajaj Electricals Ltd. the manufacturer. The relationship was deemed to be that of manufacturer-seller and purchaser, and the Company was the manufacturer.

2. Validity of the Orders:
The Court examined the orders passed by the Superintendent and the Central Government. The Superintendent's order dated 25th October 1971, which rejected the Company's price-list, was set aside by the Appellate Collector on 3rd September 1973. However, the Central Government's order dated 10th June 1975 restored the Superintendent's order, asserting that Bajaj Electricals Ltd. was engaged in the manufacture through the Company. The Court found that the Central Government's order was not justified, as the Company was the actual manufacturer. The Court relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Voltas' case, which supported the Company's position.

3. Entitlement to Refund:
The Company sought the refund of Rs. 1,71,268.60 paid under protest. The Court directed the Department to refund this amount to the Company within six months, without interest. The Court also awarded costs to the petitioners.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the refund of the amount paid under protest. The Court affirmed that the Company was the manufacturer and that the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.