R. B. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the aforesaid writ petitions involve common question of law and fact and, as such, are being disposed of together. ( 2 ) IN writ petition No. 315 of 81, the petitioners are carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of aerated water, known as Campa Cola, Campa Orange and Campa Lemon and special soda. The petitioner company is a registered company. ( 3 ) IN this case, a franchise agreement entered into between M/s. Pure Drinks (New Delhi)Limited, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "company") and the petitioner (namely, Singh beverages Pvt. Limited and another) really establish that the petitioner was manufacturing the beverages, only beverages base was supplied by M/s. Pure Drinks, New Delhi. The franchise agreement also shows that the petitioner was manufacturer of the said beverages but the manufacturing was being done in the trade name of the company. The agreement took care that the petitioner-manufacturer shall not violate the trade mark of the company. This agreement clearly manifests that the petitioners are manufacturers and are manufacturing the beverages in the trade name of the company within the territory detailed in the franchise agreement. The agreement also manifests that the petitioners were not the agents of company, namely, M/s. Pure drinks, New Delhi. ( 4 ) IN the second writ petition No. 337 of 81, M/s. Jagons Bottling Company have entered into a similar franchise agreement with M/s. Campa Beverages Private Limited. The franchise agreement is in the same terms as in the case of M/s. Singh Beverages Private Limited. ( 5 ) THE question involved in the present writ petitions is as to whether petitioners are manufacturers of the beverages? ( 6 ) A similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 209 of 1981 Alankar Bottling Co. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 18. 7. 91. In the said matter this Court has held that the petitioners were manufacturers of aerated water and were entitled for the benefit of various notifications issued under the Central Excise Act exempting the manufacturers of aerated water upto Rs. 5,00,000/ -. v. Union of India and Ors. decided on 18. 7. 91. In the said matter this Court has held that the petitioners were manufacturers of aerated water and were entitled for the benefit of various notifications issued under the Central Excise Act exempting the manufacturers of aerated water upto Rs. 5,00,000/ -. Having held that the petitioners were entitled for the benefit of exemption, the question of refund of excise duty was also considered in the said writ petition and it has been held that the matter of refund will be considered by the assistant Collector, Central Excise, who will decide it on the basis of principle of unjust enrichment, i. e. , if the petitioners have already recovered the amount of excise duty from the consumers, the petitioners will not be entitled for any such benefit and in case the Assistant collector finds that the petitioners have not passed over its duty to its consumers, it shall be entitled for the refund of the excise duty. ( 7 ) BOTH the writ petitions are covered by the decision of this Court in Alankar Bottling Co. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra ). The petitioners are held to be manufacturers of aerated water of campa Cola and other beverages and are entitled for the benefits granted to the manufacturers of aerated water under various notifications issued under the Central Excise Act. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, both the writ petitions are allowed. However, the question of refund of excise duty will be determined by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise on the principles of unjust enrichment as indicated above. The parties will bear their own costs. .