9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Parles Bottling Company (hereinafter referred to as Parles). They purchased the concentrates from Parles and were manufacturing aerated waters under the agreement which imposed various conditions relating to preparation, bottling selling and distributing the aerated water. The aerated waters were sold under the trade mark `Parles'. The Asstt. Collector held in his order dated 17-6-1977 that in view of the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement the party could be held to be manufacturing aerated waters for and on behalf of the brand name owner, namely, 'Parles', and since the total Horse Power used by Parles and the party taken together exceeded 10 H.P., the exemption under Notification No. 82/74 was not available to them. 2. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing excise duty on the goods manufactured by them and were also independently assessed for sales tax and income-tax purpose. They alone had to comply with the requirement of Central or State and local laws relating to manufacture and sale of their goods. It was submitted that on a similar issue the Appellate Collector, Hyderabad had allowed the appeals of M/s. Saravaraya Sugars Ltd. Vemagiri and M/s. Vizag Bottling Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., Visakhapatnam vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 207/79, dated 5-5-1979. A copy of this order was also submitted. lt was also contended that there are several decisions of the Courts holding that merely because goods are produced under agreements with brand name or trade marks belonging to others, these others do not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment with Parles containing several conditions. It is not uncommon where the goods are manufactured under a Franchise that the manufacturers of such goods has to abide by some of the basic conditions stipulated by the owner of the trade mark, who has to jealously guard the quality, specifications and other such standards of the product to be manufactured by the parties to whom the franchise benefit is given. Such stipulations do not amount to either interference with the working of the manufacturer or any dilution in the legal character of the manufacturer. The judgment of Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1324 of 1976 judgment dated 29-6-1977 in the case of M/s. Cibatul Ltd. Atul v. Union of India and Others - [1978 (2) E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
