1979 (7) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The petitioners have entered into agreement with M/s. Hindustan Koloener Switchgear Ltd. on February 13, 1973 with M/s. Precision Industries on September 20, 1973 and with Harhari Engineering Works on January, 21, 1974. By these agreements the individual manufacturers supplied the products like starters and electric motors to the petitioners. These agreements provided that after the manufacture of the goods the said individual manufacturers would affix the labels of the trade name of the petitioners `Batliboi' to the articles. The petitioners have produced on record the agreements and so also the specimen of labels used by these individual manufacturers. 2. The petitioners complain that by letter dated July 20, 1974 addressed by the Super .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Mr. Joshi submitted that the action of the Superintendent in assuming that lhe petitioners were manufacturers only because their brand name is affixed to the products manufactured by M/s. Precision Industries is entirely illegal and unjust. I find merit in this submission of the learned counsel. In support of his submission., Mr. Joshi relied upon two decisions one of the Gujarat High Court in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 68) Cibatul Ltd. v. Union of India and others and the decision of the Patna High Court in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 211) in the case of Bata India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna. These two decisions undoubtedly support the contentio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K was out of clear misconception of the provisions of law. It is not possible to treat the Petitioners as manufacturers under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the said Act only on the ground that the petitioners' brand name is affixed to the goods manufactured by M/s. Precision Industries. I wish to make it clear that it is open for the Department to take into consideration other factors including the agreements between the petitioners and individual manufacturers and then come to a decision whether individual manufacturers are really agents under the control of the petitioners. But the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioners holding them as the manufacturers only because of use of their brand name. It is required to be stated t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X