TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee as containers for the soft drinks sold by it. The assessee received deposits from its customers for the bottles. Such deposits being returnable after the bottles were returned. The intention of the assessee was to reuse the bottles, as that would keep down the cost of the marketing, and by ensuring that the price for the soft drink is at a reasonable level, the market for the soft drink coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was explained by the Supreme Court in the case of United Breweries Ltd. v. State of A.P. [1997] 105 STC 177; [1997] 3 SCC 530. The court, after referring to the special facts of the case considered in Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. [1959] 35 ITR 519 (SC), and distinguishing the same, held that the matter is always one of the intention of the parties that if the parties did not intend that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no contrary intention evident in the transaction between the parties. The Tribunal has held that the intention of the assessee in receiving the deposit was not to treat the delivery of the bottles as part of the transaction of sale, and the deposit was not intended to be regarded as the proceeds of the sale. The deposit was meant to be a deposit only and not consideration for the sale, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|