9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected 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. 2. The respondent, Messrs Food Specialties 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fications supplied by Nestle's and the price of the products was determined under the agreements free on rail at Moga or free on lorry and factory. The respondent enjoyed no interest in the trade marks and labels and undertook not to sell any of those products to any person other than Nestle's. 3. The products manufactured by the respondent were subject to excise duty under the said Excises and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket and that the value of such trade marks should be added to the whole-sale 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 a component of the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment of excise duty. We are of opinion that the High Court was righ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Nestle's as stipulated 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 Nestl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
