9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of aerated waters under the trade name of `Thrill', `Rush' `Sprint' and `McDowell soda' under the franchise agreement with M/s. McDowell Company Ltd., Madras. The petitioner is a small scale industry and is registered as such with the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Bhopal, and as such, it is entitled to the concession available to the small scale industries under the various Central and State enactments. It is also getting subsidy from the State Government in its capacity as a small scale industry. This company manufactures the aforesaid brands of aerated water and is using carbon dioxide, water, essence, etc. as raw materials. The manufactured goods are sold in bottles in the open market and the goods are subjected to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earance of the specified goods up to value of Rs. 50 lac and the concession of excise duty on subject having cleared not exceeding of Rs. 1 1/2 crores in the preceding year. The explanation provided that for the purpose of this Notification where any specified goods are used for further manufactured by a manufacturer, are affixed with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another manufacturer or trader, such specified goods shall not, merely by reason of that fact, be deemed to have been manufactured by such another manufacturer or trader. By virtue of this, the petitioner was using the trade name of McDowell Company for manufacture of aerated waters and this was withdrawn subsequently by another Notification No. 223/87 dated 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination between the same. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the respondents has invited our attention the decisions of various High Courts given in Goa Bottling Co. P. Ltd. Another v. U.O.I. Others decided by Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 246/87, dated 25-4-1988; Black Diamond Beverages Ltd. v. U.O.I. [1988 (36) E.L.T. 225 (Cal.)] and Delhi Bottling Co. Ltd. v. U.O.I., decided by Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 3032/87, dated 30-10-1987. In all these cases, some what similar question regarding grant of benefit of Modvat was revoked and the same argument was raised that the State Government is stopped by virtue of the principle of Promissory Estoppel and that has been overruled. Similarly, we have also taken the same view in id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
