{"id":118760,"date":"2011-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011"},"modified":"2018-05-27T12:25:19","modified_gmt":"2018-05-27T06:55:19","slug":"commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                                    REPORTABLE\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3186 OF 2011\n\n            [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 560 of 2011]\n\n\n\n\nCommissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.                            ..Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                             Versus\n\n\n\n\n\nVarun Beverages Limited                                        ..Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order <\/p>\n
dated   19.01.2010   passed   by   the   Allahabad   High   Court <\/p>\n
whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition preferred <\/p>\n
by the respondent holding that values of “bottles” and “crates”\n<\/p>\n
are to be treated as part of “Fixed Capital Investment”  as they <\/p>\n
are   essential   apparatus   for   manufacture   of  Soft   Drinks  and <\/p>\n
therefore could be governed and covered within the meaning of <\/p>\n
explanation   4(b)(i)   to   Section   4-A   of   the   U.P.   Trade   Tax   Act <\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
3.     The  issue,  therefore,   which  falls  for  our consideration   is <\/p>\n
as to whether or not bottles and crates used by the respondent <\/p>\n
could   be   said   to   be   essential   apparatus   or   equipments   or <\/p>\n
components  for  the  establishment  and  running  of the  factory <\/p>\n
of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
4.     The respondent is engaged in manufacturing and sale of <\/p>\n
soft drink and beverages.   The assessee – respondent applied <\/p>\n
for   the   grant   of   eligibility   certificate   under   Section   4A   of   the <\/p>\n
U.P.   Trade   Tax   Act   read   with   notification   No.   640   dated <\/p>\n
21.02.1997.           Pursuant   to   the   aforesaid   request,   the <\/p>\n
respondent\/assessee   was   granted   an   eligibility   certificate   on <\/p>\n
26.5.2000   by   the   Divisional   Level   Committee   constituted <\/p>\n
under   section   4A  of  the   Act.  The   exemptions   were  granted   to <\/p>\n
the assessee for a period of ten years running from 15.4.1999 <\/p>\n
to   14.4.2009   or   to   the   extent   of   200%   of   the   fixed   capital <\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
investment   of  Rs.53,79,49,612\/-,   whichever  was  earlier.    The <\/p>\n
exemption   certificate   granted   on   26.5.2000   stipulates   that   it <\/p>\n
was   granted   for   the   goods,   which   were   manufactured   by   the <\/p>\n
assessee as mentioned in the eligibility certificate. Towards the <\/p>\n
end of the  eligibility certificate  the goods manufactures by the <\/p>\n
respondent are described, which are as under: –\n<\/p>\n
      1.     Carbonate   Soft   Drinks\/Aerated   Drinks,   including <\/p>\n
             syrups and beverages packed in a sealed container.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.     Sealed and no unsealed soft drinks packed in sealed <\/p>\n
             glass   containers   carbonated   drinks   and   aerated <\/p>\n
             water   including   sweated   and   non   sweated   drinks, <\/p>\n
             mineral   water   packed   in   pet   bottles   and   pet   pre <\/p>\n
             forms to be used in fillings of beverages and liquids <\/p>\n
             articles.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.    Subsequently   the   assessee   applied   for   a   review   of   the <\/p>\n
eligibility   certificate   and   sought   extension   of   the   period   from <\/p>\n
ten   years   to   fifteen   years.   In   the   said   review   application,   the <\/p>\n
assessee   also   sought   exemptions   for   fixed   capital   investment <\/p>\n
made   by   it   in   glass   bottles   and   crates   claiming   that   these <\/p>\n
items were essential for the manufacture of soft drinks and for <\/p>\n
running a beverage unit. In that application it was also stated <\/p>\n
that while computing the fixed capital investment, an amount <\/p>\n
equal   to   Rs.   5,73,62,277\/-   invested   by   the   assessee   towards <\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
purchases of bottles and crates should also be included in the <\/p>\n
fixed capital investment.\n<\/p>\n
6.    The   Divisional   Level   Committee   vide   its   order   dated <\/p>\n
10.04.2001   allowed   the   review   application   and   ordered   that <\/p>\n
the   aforesaid   amount   of   Rs.   5,73,62,277\/-   be   included   while <\/p>\n
computing the fixed capital investment of the assessee.  By the <\/p>\n
aforesaid order dated 10.04.2001 the  eligibility certificate  was <\/p>\n
also granted to the assessee for a period of 15 years.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 10.04.2001 <\/p>\n
the   appellant   filed   an   appeal   before   the   UP   Tribunal,   Trade, <\/p>\n
Tax,   Lucknow.     The   Tribunal   by   its   order   dated   14.05.2002 <\/p>\n
allowed the said appeal filed by the appellant holding that the <\/p>\n
bottles   and   crates   are   neither   directly   nor   indirectly   used   in <\/p>\n
the   manufacture   of   beverages   and   therefore   the   same   cannot <\/p>\n
be   treated   as   “Apparatus”   as   used   in   the   said   entry   in <\/p>\n
explanation (4) to Section 4-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   order   passed   by   the   UP <\/p>\n
Tribunal, Trade,  Tax, Lucknow, the respondent assessee  filed <\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
a revision petition before the Allahabad High Court which was <\/p>\n
registered  as  Trade   Tax   Revision   No.   337   of   2002.     The   High <\/p>\n
Court by its order dated 19.01.2010 allowed the said revision <\/p>\n
petition   holding   that   for   the   manufacture   of   soft   drink,   the <\/p>\n
bottles   and   crates   are   essential   apparatus   especially   in   a <\/p>\n
captive   industry   where   the   liquid   which   is   prepared   and <\/p>\n
collected   by   way   of   a   continuous   process   in   the   bottles   and <\/p>\n
thereafter   kept   it   in   crates   and   therefore   both   bottles   and <\/p>\n
crates are to be accepted as “apparatus” within the meaning of <\/p>\n
Explanation (4) (b) (i) to section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
9.     The   question   of   law   that   was   framed   by   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
was   answered   in   favour   of   the   assessee   holding   that   such <\/p>\n
bottles and crates are to be treated as fixed capital investment.\n<\/p>\n
It was also held that the period of exemption was for 15 years.\n<\/p>\n
10.    The   aforesaid   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   was <\/p>\n
challenged   by   the   appellant   by   filing   the   present   appeal   in <\/p>\n
which we heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By <\/p>\n
way of clarification it has to be stated at this stage that in the <\/p>\n
present   appeal   what   is   specifically   challenged   is   first   part   of <\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
the   order   with   regard   to   bottles   and   crates   forming   part   of <\/p>\n
fixed capital investment and not that part of the order granting <\/p>\n
exemption   for   a   period   of   15   years.   The   appeal,   therefore,   is <\/p>\n
restricted to the aforesaid limited issue.\n<\/p>\n
11.    The   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   during   the <\/p>\n
course of his arguments had taken us through the provisions <\/p>\n
of   Section   4-A   of   the   Act.     He   submitted   that   in   the   light   of <\/p>\n
aforesaid provisions, the State Government granted exemption <\/p>\n
from payment of trade tax in certain cases.\n<\/p>\n
12.    The   aforesaid   provision   relied   upon  is   Section   4A   of   the <\/p>\n
Act which lays down that where the State Government is of the <\/p>\n
opinion   that   it   is   necessary   so   to   do   for   increasing   the <\/p>\n
production   of   any  goods   or  for   promoting   the   development   of <\/p>\n
any   industry   in   the   State,   it   may   on   the   application   or <\/p>\n
otherwise declare that the turnover of sales in respect of such <\/p>\n
goods   by   the   manufacturer   thereof   shall,   during   such   period <\/p>\n
not exceeding fifteen years is exempted from payment of trade <\/p>\n
tax   provided   that  goods  manufactured   in   the   new   unit   has   a <\/p>\n
fixed capital investment of five crore rupees or more.  The said <\/p>\n
                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
section further provides in sub-section (4) of Section 4-A of the <\/p>\n
Act as to what is the meaning of the expression “Fixed Capital <\/p>\n
Investment”.     It   is   provided   therein   that   “Fixed   capital <\/p>\n
investment” means value of land and building and such plants <\/p>\n
including   captive   power   plant,   machinery,   equipment, <\/p>\n
apparatus, components, moulds, dyes, jigs and fixtures.   It is <\/p>\n
mentioned   in   sub-clause   (b)   inserted   in   the   proviso   to  sub-\n<\/p>\n
section   (4)   of   Section   4-A   of   the   Act   that  for   the   purposes   of <\/p>\n
determining   value   of   plant   including   captive   power   plant, <\/p>\n
machinery, equipment, apparatus, components, moulds, dyes, <\/p>\n
jigs   and   fixtures   only   the   following   shall   be   taken   into <\/p>\n
account:-\n<\/p>\n
       (i)   investment,   whether   by   means   of   purchases,   hire   or <\/p>\n
       lease   in   such   plant,   equipment,   apparatus,   components <\/p>\n
       and machinery, as is necessary for the establishment or <\/p>\n
       running of the factory or workshop.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.    Relying on the aforesaid provisions the counsel appearing <\/p>\n
for the appellant submitted that bottles and crates cannot be <\/p>\n
held to be  ‘Fixed Capital Investment’    either for establishment <\/p>\n
or   running   of   the   factory   or  workshop   of   the   respondent   and <\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore the value of the same cannot be included within the <\/p>\n
expression   “fixed  capital  investment”   and,  therefore,  the  High <\/p>\n
Court was not justified in directing for inclusion of the value of <\/p>\n
the   aforesaid   bottles   and   crates   to   be   read   within   the <\/p>\n
expression of “fixed capital investment”. Counsel appearing for <\/p>\n
the   appellant   further   submitted   that   the   impugned   order   is <\/p>\n
contrary   to   the   ruling   of   this   Court   in  State   of   Bihar   and  <\/p>\n
Others  vs.  Steel   City   Beverage   Limited   and<\/a>   another <\/p>\n
reported in  (1999) 1 SCC 10. It was held by this Court that in <\/p>\n
respect   of   an   industry   manufacturing   soft   drinks   and <\/p>\n
beverages,   it   can   be   said   that   plant   would   mean   that <\/p>\n
apparatus   which   is   used   for   manufacturing   soft   drinks   or <\/p>\n
beverages   and   not   articles   like   crates   and   bottles   used   for <\/p>\n
storing the manufactured goods.  It was also submitted by the <\/p>\n
counsel that the High Court erred in enlarging the scope of the <\/p>\n
definition of the word “Fixed Capital Investment” ignoring the <\/p>\n
specific   words   used   in   the   said   definition.     It   was   also <\/p>\n
submitted that the use of word “Apparatus” in the definition of <\/p>\n
“Fixed   Capital   Investment”   is   restricted   to   such   apparatus <\/p>\n
which   are   actually   used   in   the   manufacture   of   finished <\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
product   and   that   it   cannot   be   extended   to   such   apparatus <\/p>\n
which are used for storing of finished products.\n<\/p>\n
14.    Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, not only <\/p>\n
refuted the aforesaid submissions but also submitted that the <\/p>\n
above referred decision of this Court is clearly distinguishable <\/p>\n
from   the   facts   of   the   present   case   in   view   of   the   clear <\/p>\n
distinction between the provision of law upon which the above <\/p>\n
referred decision was rendered by this Court and the provision <\/p>\n
of law which is applicable to the facts of the present case.  He <\/p>\n
also   submitted   that   the   definition   of   fixed   capital   investment <\/p>\n
as per sub-section (4) of Section 4-A of the Act would indicate <\/p>\n
that   respondent   is   entitled   to   exemption   for   all   the  fixed <\/p>\n
capital investment which not only include within its ambit the <\/p>\n
value   of   the   land   and   building   but   also   such   apparatus, <\/p>\n
components   and   equipments,   which   are   necessary   for   the <\/p>\n
establishment   or   running   of   the   factory   or   workshop.     He <\/p>\n
further submitted that provisions of the Act includes not only <\/p>\n
plants,   machinery   but   also   includes   apparatus,   components, <\/p>\n
moulds,   dyes,   jigs   and   fixtures.     He   also   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
glass bottles and creates are absolutely necessary for the unit <\/p>\n
                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
of   soft   drink   as   without   the   use   of   these   apparatus,   the <\/p>\n
manufacture of soft drink would not be complete.\n<\/p>\n
15.    In the light of the submissions made by counsel appearing <\/p>\n
for   the   parties,   we   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
parties   and   considered   the   scope   and   ambit   of   the   question <\/p>\n
which falls for our determination.\n<\/p>\n
16.    This   Court   in   the   case   of  CST   v.   Industrial   Coal  <\/p>\n
Enterprises,  reported  at  (1999) 2  SCC  607, observed  that as <\/p>\n
under:  –\n<\/p>\n
       “6.   Admittedly   the   provisions   for   exemption   from
\n       sales   tax   have   been   introduced   in   the   Act   for   the
\n       purpose of increasing the production of goods and for
\n       promoting the development of industries in the State.
\n       In  fact,  when  the  scheme called “Grant of Sales Tax
\n       Exemption   Scheme   1982   to   industrial   units   under
\n       Section   4-A   of   the   Sales   Tax   Act”   was   originally
\n       framed, it was expressly stated that the Government
\n       granted   the   facility   of   exemption   in   order   to
\n       encourage  the  capital   investment  and   establishment
\n       of   industrial   units   in   the   State.   The   Scheme
\n       contained   various   rules   for   grant   of   such
\n       exemption……..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       11.    In   CIT  v.   Straw   Board   Mfg.  Co.   Ltd.   this   Court
\n       held   that   in   taxing   statutes,   provision   for
\n       concessional   rate   of   tax   should   be   liberally
\n       construed. So also in Bajaj  Tempo Ltd. v. CIT it was
\n       held   that   provision   granting   incentive   for   promoting
\n       economic growth  and development in taxing statutes  <\/p>\n
                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
       should   be   liberally   construed   and   restriction   placed
\n       on   it   by   way   of   exception   should   be   construed   in   a
\n       reasonable  and  purposive  manner  so as  to advance
\n       the objective of the provision.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       12.  We   find   that   the   object   of   granting   exemption
\n       from   payment   of   sales   tax   has   always   been   for
\n       encouraging capital  investment and establishment of
\n       industrial   units   for   the   purpose   of   increasing
\n       production   of   goods   and   promoting   the   development
\n       of industry in the State. If the test laid down in Bajaj
\n       Tempo   Ltd.   case   is   applied,   there   is   no   doubt
\n       whatever   that   the   exemption   granted   to   the
\n       respondent   from   9-8-1985   when   it   fulfilled   all   the
\n       prescribed   conditions   will   not   cease   to   operate   just
\n       because the  capital  investment exceeded the  limit  of
\n       Rs 3   lakhs   on   account   of   the   respondent   becoming
\n       the owner of land and building to which the unit was
\n       shifted…………………”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
17.    The aforesaid object of the relevant provision in the light <\/p>\n
of   other   provisions   of   the   Act,   makes   it   crystal   clear   that   the <\/p>\n
value   of   investment   for   equipments,   apparatus   and <\/p>\n
components for running the factory and workshop has also to <\/p>\n
be considered as investment and such value is required to be <\/p>\n
included   within   the   ambit   of  fixed   capital   investment.   The <\/p>\n
wordings   of   the   provision   of   law   which   call   for   our <\/p>\n
interpretation   are   not   identical   and   similar   which   were <\/p>\n
considered   and   interpreted   by   this   court   in   the   decision   in <\/p>\n
State of Bihar and Others (supra).\n<\/p>\n
                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
18.    This   Court   in   the   case   of  State   of   Bihar   v.   Steel   City  <\/p>\n
Beverages  Ltd.,<\/a>  reported   as   (1999)   1   SCC   10,   observed   that <\/p>\n
as under: –\n<\/p>\n
       “8. It is also relevant to refer to the two  notifications
\n       of the Government of India in the Ministry of Industry
\n       (Department   of   Industrial   Development)   dated   2-4-
\n       1991 and 1-1-1993 issued under Section 11-B of the
\n       Industries   (Development   &   Regulation)   Act,   1951.
\n       Notification   No.   232   dated   2-4-1991   while   stating
\n       what   has   to   be   included   under   fixed   assets   while
\n       ascertaining   whether   a   small-scale   industrial   unit’s
\n       investment has exceeded the limit of Rs 60 lakhs has
\n       clarified   that   the   cost   of   storage   tanks   which   store
\n       raw  material   or  finished  products   is  to  be  excluded.
\n       The 1993 notification has amended the notification of
\n       2-4-1991   and   clarified   by   adding   Note   2   that   in
\n       calculating   the   value   of   plant   and   machinery,   the
\n       cost   of   storage            tanks            which       store        raw
\n       materials\/finished   products  only   and   which   are   not
\n       linked   with   the   manufacturing   process   shall   be
\n       excluded.   On   8-5-1995,   the   Government   of   India
\n       again   issued   a   circular,   after   having   received
\n       representations             from         the         industry         seeking
\n       clarification   whether   bottles   and   crates   are   to   be
\n       taken   into   account   for  determining   the   SSI  status   of
\n       the   units   engaged   in   manufacture   of   soft
\n       drinks\/concentrates,   clarifying   that   investment   in
\n       bottles   and   crates   in   such   units   is   in   the   nature   of
\n       storage   of   finished   products   and,   therefore,   such
\n       investment   has   to   be   excluded   while   computing   the
\n       value of plant and machinery.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       9.   As   pointed   out   in   the   affidavit-in-rejoinder,   the
\n       Company   had   applied   for   an   Eligibility   Certificate
\n       claiming the status of a small-scale industry. It is, in
\n       fact, registered as a small-scale industrial unit. While
\n       declaring   its   investment   at   the   time   of   seeking
\n       registration as a small-scale industrial unit, it did not
\n       include   investment   in   bottles   and   crates   under   the
\n       head   “Plant   and   Machinery”.   The   investment   in
\n       bottles   and   crates   was   shown   under   a   separate
\n       head.   It   is   further   pointed   out   in   the   said   affidavit
\n       that  if the investment of the Company in bottles and  <\/p>\n
                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
      crates   is   included   under   the   head   “Plant”   then   its
\n      total   fixed   capital   investment   will   reach   the   level   of
\n      137.36 lakhs and  it can no longer be regarded as  a
\n      small-scale   industrial   unit.   As   the   Company   had
\n      applied   as   a   SSI   unit,   the   District   Level   Committee
\n      had to verify  the  status  of the  Company  as  SSI unit
\n      and, therefore, it was  bound to take into account the
\n      above-referred   two   notifications   of   the   years   1991
\n      and  1993. If under these circumstances,  the  District
\n      Level   Committee   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the
\n      Company is not entitled to the benefit of deferment in
\n      respect   of   its   investment   in   bottles   and   crates,   it
\n      cannot be said that it has acted contrary to law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
19.A   careful   reading   of   the   ratio   of   the   aforesaid   decision <\/p>\n
   would   reveal   that   expression   plant   and   machinery   in   the <\/p>\n
   said   case   was   intended   to   take   such   articles   which   are <\/p>\n
   required   for   the   purpose   of   manufacture   and   not   for <\/p>\n
   storage.   Besides,   the   said   decision   was   rendered   in   the <\/p>\n
   context of the two notifications which specifically excluded <\/p>\n
   value of bottles and crates to be included in the expression <\/p>\n
   “plant   and   machinery”   as   the   same   are   used   for   the <\/p>\n
   purpose   of   storage   of   finished   products   and   not   used   for <\/p>\n
   the purpose of manufacture of finished products.\n<\/p>\n
20.However, in this case, not only the wordings of the Act are <\/p>\n
   wider   but   there   is   also   no   such   notification   issued   by   the <\/p>\n
   State   Government   giving   a   restricted   meaning   to   the <\/p>\n
                                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
    expression   “fixed   capital   investment”   which   as   per <\/p>\n
    provision   enacted   also   includes   all   such   investment   made <\/p>\n
    for   equipment,   apparatus,   components   and   machinery <\/p>\n
    which are necessary for running of the factory or workshop.\n<\/p>\n
21. In  that   view   of   the   matter   and   considering   the   wording   of <\/p>\n
    the   provision   itself,   it   is   quite   necessary   to   give   full   and <\/p>\n
    complete   effect  to   the   provision   in   a   purposive   manner   so <\/p>\n
    as   to   advance   the   objective   of   the   provision.   So   in   the <\/p>\n
    instant   case   all   those   apparatus,   equipments   and <\/p>\n
    components which are necessary for running of the factory <\/p>\n
    would   also   be   considered   as   investment   and   would <\/p>\n
    therefore   be   part   of   the   definition   of            fixed   capital <\/p>\n
    investment.     Besides, as laid down in the decision of this <\/p>\n
    Court   in  CIT   v.   Straw   Board   Mfg.   Co.   Ltd.   reported   as <\/p>\n
    1989 Suppl. (2) SCC 523, in taxing statutes, provisions for <\/p>\n
    concessional rate of tax should be liberally construed.\n<\/p>\n
22. The   respondents   are   engaged   in   the   manufacture   of  soft <\/p>\n
    drink   and   beverages  which   are   required   to   be   bottled   and <\/p>\n
    thereafter sealed, which are essential part of running of the <\/p>\n
                                         1<\/span><\/p>\n
   factory   and   therefore   the   same   will   have   to   be   included <\/p>\n
   within   the   aforesaid   extended   meaning   of   the   word <\/p>\n
   `investment’   as   appearing   from   the   words   `fixed   capital <\/p>\n
   investment’.     To   that   extent,   facts   of   the   present   case   are <\/p>\n
   distinguishable   from   the   facts   of  State   of   Bihar   and  <\/p>\n
   Others  (supra)  on   which   reliance   was   placed   by   the <\/p>\n
   counsel appearing for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
23. Considering  the   facts   and   circumstances,   we   hold   that   so <\/p>\n
   far   bottles   are   concerned,   they   are   essential   part   of <\/p>\n
   components   and   equipments   necessary   for   the   running   of <\/p>\n
   the   factory   and   therefore   such   value   of   the   investment <\/p>\n
   would form part of the fixed capital investment and would <\/p>\n
   be entitled to exemption as provided for. But so far crates <\/p>\n
   are concerned they are used by the respondent only for the <\/p>\n
   purpose of marketing.  Use of crates is necessary for taking <\/p>\n
   out the bottled beverages out of the factory and while doing <\/p>\n
   the   marketing   of   the   sealed   bottled   beverages.     The <\/p>\n
   aforesaid   view   taken   by   us   also   receives   support   from   the <\/p>\n
   contents   of  the   eligibility   certificate   given   by   the   appellant <\/p>\n
   and therefore crates have no user so far as running of the <\/p>\n
                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
   factory of the respondent.  Therefore, the value of crates in <\/p>\n
   our considered opinion cannot be deemed to be investment <\/p>\n
   for   the   purpose   of   including   it   within   the   meaning   of <\/p>\n
   expression   “Fixed   Capital   Investment”   as   per  sub-section <\/p>\n
   (4) of Section 4-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
24.    Having   held   thus,   we   allow   this   appeal   partly   to   the <\/p>\n
aforesaid   extent.     We   uphold   the   order   passed   by   the   High <\/p>\n
Court   so  far  bottles  are   concerned   but  set  aside   the   same   so <\/p>\n
far crates are concerned.   In terms of the aforesaid order and <\/p>\n
observations, this appeal stands disposed of but there will be <\/p>\n
no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ……………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                        [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]<\/p>\n
                                            ……………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                        [Anil R. Dave]<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
April 11, 2011<\/p>\n
                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011 Author: . M Sharma Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3186 OF 2011 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 560 of 2011] Commissioner of Trade […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-27T06:55:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-27T06:55:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3055,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-27T06:55:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-27T06:55:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-27T06:55:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011"},"wordCount":3055,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011","name":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-27T06:55:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-trade-tax-u-p-vs-varun-beverages-ltd-on-11-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Trade Tax, U.P vs Varun Beverages Ltd on 11 April, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118760\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}