JUDGMENT : I. Mahanty, J. The petitioner, namely, United Spirits Limited have sought to challenge the demand of Rs. 54,92,906/- raised by the Officer-in-Charge (Excise), M/s. United Spirits Limited, Ekamkana, Nimapara, Puri under Annexure-5 towards the differential bottling fee for the period from 11.04.2013 to 16.08.2013. 2. Mr. S.M. Pattanaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-company had entered into a registered lease deed with one Heritage Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (Annexure-2) dated 25.05.2013. In terms of the said lease deed, the petitioner-company were the less or of the premises of the said Heritage Distilleries for a period of five years extendable thereafter on mutual term and, accordingly, made an application to the excise authorities for grant of license for producing IMFL at the said premises. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the necessary excise license No. 01/2013-14 dated 11.04.2013 was granted in favour of the petitioner-company (Annexure-3) and was described as "license for compounding or blending of foreign liquor" and in the column of "locality where operations are to be carried out", it is stated as follows:- "In the lease-out premises of Heritage Distillery Ekamakona, Nimapada, District-Puri." Apart from the aforesaid license, which was issued in Form-F.L.13, the petitioner also has obtained a license (issued in Form F.L.-14) bearing No. 04/2009-10 from the excise authorities which was termed as "License for bottling of portable foreign liquor" wherein the detailed of the licensee (petitioner) was mentioned and once again the location was described as leased out premises of Heritage Distillery Ekamakona, Nimapada, District-Puri. In the said license, it was noted that "license is hereby granted for the period from 11.04.2013 to 31.03.2014 holding license No. 01/2013-14 for the wholesale vend of foreign liquor for bottling of such liquor for sale at Orissa". Clause-II of the said license contained as follows:- "The licensee shall pay bottling fee @ Rs. 7/- per 1pl of IMFL in respect of own brands and Rs. 10.50/- in respect of other than own brand bottled in the unit as per Excise Policy for the year 2013-14. xxx" 3. It is stated that after the petitioner-company obtaining lease of the premises and the aforesaid two licenses in Form Nos. 7/- per 1pl of IMFL in respect of own brands and Rs. 10.50/- in respect of other than own brand bottled in the unit as per Excise Policy for the year 2013-14. xxx" 3. It is stated that after the petitioner-company obtaining lease of the premises and the aforesaid two licenses in Form Nos. F.L.-13 & F.L.-14 respectively for compounding and blending of foreign liquor and for bottling of potable foreign liquor, he has also obtained q further license in Form-F.L.1 towards license for foreign liquor warehouse for sale to the trade i.e. to other licensed dealers. Therefore, after obtaining necessary three licenses, the petitioner company thereafter applied for and was granted approval of foreign liquor labels under Rule-41-A of the Board's Excise Rules, 1965 for three of its brands, namely, Derby Special PREMIUM WHISKY (Modified), McDowell's No. 1 Celebration MATURED XXX RUM (Modified) and Mc.Dowell's No. 1 PLATINUM SUPERIOR WHISKY (Modified). 4. The essential contention of the petitioner in this writ application is that the petitioner-company having the necessary licenses as noted hereinabove to bottling and blending of foreign liquor as well as to store for purpose of sale in Orissa produced the brands for which the approvals were granted to the petitioner under Rule-41-A of the Board's Excise Rules, 1965 and in terms of Clause-II of the license of bottling of potable foreign liquor (F.L. 14) made the necessary deposit of bottling fee "@ Rs. 7/- per 1pl of IMFL" since the bottling of potable foreign liquor was brands owned by the petitioner-company itself as narrated hereinabove. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances as noted hereinabove, the demand came to be made on the petitioner-company by the excise authorities under Annexure-5 dated 17.08.2013, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. 6. A counter affidavit came to be filed on behalf of the State of Odisha through the Superintendent of Excise and the essence of the contention of the State was narrated in paragraph-7 of the said counter affidavit, which is quoted hereunder:- "7. 6. A counter affidavit came to be filed on behalf of the State of Odisha through the Superintendent of Excise and the essence of the contention of the State was narrated in paragraph-7 of the said counter affidavit, which is quoted hereunder:- "7. That in rely to the averments made in paragraphs 6 & 7 of the writ application, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was allowed earlier for bottling of IMFL in the plant of M/s Heritage Distilleries (P) Ltd., Ekamakona, Nimapara, Puri during the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 on the up basis and the unit M/s Heritage Distilleries Ltd. paid the bottling fee meant for other brand (i.e. Rs. 9/- for the year 2011-12 and Rs. 10/- for the year 2012-13) During this year M/s United Spirits Ltd. instead of tie up basis has been allowed for production of IMFL in the premises of M/s Heritage Distilleries (P) Ltd. on the basis of lease agreement by transferring license in their name for a period of five years with effect from 01.04.2013. But the matter remains the same that the Unit is continuing their production as has been done in the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 as aforesaid. As per Section 23 of Bihar and Odisha Excise Act, 1915 and Rule 35 of Board's Excise Rules, 1965, the Unit M/s United Spirits Ltd. has not purchased the establishment/factory from Heritage Distilleries (P) Ltd. for which M/s United Spirits Ltd. cannot be treated as owner of the factory at Ekamkona., Nimapara, Hence, the unit M/s United Spirits Ltd. is liable to pay bottling fee meant for other brand @ Rs. 10.50 per 1PL as per clause-4(2) of the Excise Duty, Fee Structure and Guide Lines for the year 2013-14." 7. In the light of the dispute before this Court in the present writ application, the only question that arise for consideration in the present case is as to whether the petitioner would be liable to pay bottling fee @ 7/- per 1pl of IMFL since it claims that the petitioner-company is bottling its own brands or Rs. 10.50/- per 1pl on the ground that earlier the petitioner had an agreement with Heritage Distilleries under which the said Heritage Distillery had earlier been bottling the products for the petitioner-company. 8. The aforesaid issue to be seen in the factual backdrop of the case. 10.50/- per 1pl on the ground that earlier the petitioner had an agreement with Heritage Distilleries under which the said Heritage Distillery had earlier been bottling the products for the petitioner-company. 8. The aforesaid issue to be seen in the factual backdrop of the case. It is not disputed that the petitioner-company had entered into an agreement with M/s Heritage Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. in the earlier years i.e. 2011-12 and 2012-13 and it is also not disputed that during that period since Heritage Distillery were blending and bottling the IMFL products for the petitioner-company, the higher rate of bottling fee chargeable at the relevant time was being charged and collected by the excise authorities from M/s. Heritage Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. However, upon the petitioner entering into a lease agreement with M/s. Heritage Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. the petitioner took over possession of the land, building and equipment of the said Heritage Distilleries on term and conditions noted in the lease deed appended as Annexure-2 to the writ application. The petitioner-company thereafter made the necessary application for the various licenses as enumerated hereinabove. The State Excise Authorities had granted license to M/s. United Spirits Ltd. in Form-F.L.-13 for compounding and blending of foreign liquor and license for bottling of potable foreign liquor in Form No. F.L.-14 as well as license in Form No. F.L.-1 for storage of foreign liquor warehouse for sale in the State. In all these licenses, it is most important to note herein that the excise authorities were aware that the petitioner-company had entered into a lease deed with Heritage Distilleries and that is why the same is specifically indicated in the license as follows:- "Locality where operations are to be carried out" :- "In the lease-out premises of Heritage Distillery Ekamakona, Nimapada, District- Puri". In other words, it is clear therefrom that in the aforesaid licenses granted to the petitioner, the excise authorities were clearly informed of the lease agreement between the petitioner and Heritage Distilleries and based on such knowledge; necessary licenses were granted to the petitioner-company. 9. The explanation provided in Annexure-5 as to why the higher rate of bottling fee for other brands i.e. @ Rs. 10.50/- per 1pl ought to be charged, is apparently on the ground that the petitioner-company does not own the premises on which the business of the petitioner-company is being carried out. 9. The explanation provided in Annexure-5 as to why the higher rate of bottling fee for other brands i.e. @ Rs. 10.50/- per 1pl ought to be charged, is apparently on the ground that the petitioner-company does not own the premises on which the business of the petitioner-company is being carried out. We find there to be no lawful Justification for any such distinction being drawn for the purpose of levying and claiming a higher bottling fee. We do not find anywhere from the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and/or Rules made thereunder that a person has to be the owner of the premises in order to be granted a license. Prior to grant of license, the excise authorities were provided with the copy of the lease deed and based on such knowledge and inspection carried out thereafter, the necessary licenses were issued in favour of the petitioner-company. We are also of the considered view that ownership of a premise cannot be the determining factor for the purpose of levy of bottling fee. The term bottling fee as it clearly indicates that the fee is to be charged for permitting compounding and bottling of foreign liquor whosoever may be licensed by the excise authorities to carry out the license activities is compound under law to comply with the license conditions. It is most imperative to take note herein that undisputedly rather the brands manufactured by the petitioner-company are the brands which have been duly approved by the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack under cover of its approval letter dated 17.04.2013 under Annexure-4, which is extracted hereinbelow: "BOARD OF REVENUE: ODISHA: CUTTACKAPROVAL OF FOREIGN. LIQUOR LABELS UNDER RULE 41-A OF BOARD'S EXCISE RULES, 1965. LA-13/2011-ORDER NO. / NIZ. DATED" Whereas M/s. United Spirits Ltd., Unit-Nimapara, At/PO-Ekamkana-752114, Via- Nimapara, Dist-Puri, Odisha have applied for modified registration of their Foreign Liquor Labels for the year 2013-14 and have deposited the required fee of Rs. 20,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninety thousand) only vide HDFC Bank Ltd. B.D. No. 027244 Dated 10.04.2013. AND THEREFORE In exercise of power vested under rule 41-A of the Board's Excise Rules, 1965, the Excise Commissioner, Odisha hereby do approve the following Foreign Liquor Labels for the year 2013-14 and authorizing the company to sale the Foreign Liquor under the following approved labels in their modified version subject to validity of license. Sl. AND THEREFORE In exercise of power vested under rule 41-A of the Board's Excise Rules, 1965, the Excise Commissioner, Odisha hereby do approve the following Foreign Liquor Labels for the year 2013-14 and authorizing the company to sale the Foreign Liquor under the following approved labels in their modified version subject to validity of license. Sl. No. Brand of the foreign Liquor Proof Strength Size 1. CIVIL DEFENCE 2. Derby Special PREMIUM WHISKY (Modified) 75° 750/375/180/90 ML 750ML 3. McDowell's No. 1 Celebration MATURED XXX RUM (Modified) 75° 750/375/180/90 ML 750ML 4. McDowell's No. 1 PLATINUM SUPERIOR WHISKY (Modified) 75° 1000/750/375/180/90 ML 750ML In using the above labels; the firm should ensure that the patent and trademark laws and Packaged Commodities Rules are not infringed. Sd/- Excise Commissioner, Odisha." 10. In the light of the limited scope of dispute as noted hereinabove, it would be relevant also to take note of the Rule-41-A of the Board's Excise Rules, 1965, which is quoted hereunder:- "41-A (1) No foreign liquor which been manufactured within Orissa in the manner prescribed in Part III above or foreign liquor which has been manufactured outside the State in India by licensed manufactured outside the State in India by licensed manufactures and allowed to be imported into the State, shall be stored in any warehouse of sale-to trade premises or any retail or any other licensee's premises for the purpose of sale unless and until the brand name under which and the label with which it is to be sold has been approved by the Excise Commissioner, Orissa and a permit by the Excise Commissioner, Orissa and a permit has been granted by him authorizing sale under such brand name and with such label. (2) The manufacture shall, after the bottles are filled, corked and capsuled, affix on each bottle a Label approved by the Excise Commissioner for the purpose of affixing such label. The labels shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time. 3.(a) The manufacturers licences to manufacture foreign liquor within the State shall apply for approval of brands and labels and for issue of permit to use such brand name and label directly to the Excise Commissioner, Orissa. The labels shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time. 3.(a) The manufacturers licences to manufacture foreign liquor within the State shall apply for approval of brands and labels and for issue of permit to use such brand name and label directly to the Excise Commissioner, Orissa. The manufacturers licenced to manufacturer foreign liquor outside Orissa shall apply to Excise Commissioner, Orissa for approval of the brands and labels and for issue of permit through their respective Excise Authority of the State. (b) Applications for approval for a new brand name of foreign liquor mentioned at Sub-rule (1) and the labels corresponding to it, shall be made to the Excise Commissioner, Orissa, at least two months prior to its sale or offer for sale; but the application for renewal of approval of existing brand and label shall be made to the Excise Commissioner, Orissa, within the last working day of the months of February each year. (c) The Manufacturer licenced to manufacture Foreign Liquor within the State and outside the State of Orissa besides 750 ml., 375 ml., 180 ml. and 90 ml. may also manufacture I.M.F.L. and bottle in quantities of 60 ml. and 1000 ml. size for sale only in I.M.F.L. OFF shops. They shall have to apply for approval of the registration of the brands and labels for sale to trade inside the State of Orissa. 4. All applications for approval of brands and labels and renewals of such brands and labels and for issue of permit shall be accompanied by such fees as may be noticed by the Board from time to time. 5. (a) The Excise Commissioner, Orissa before approval of Brands and labels and issue of permit, shall made such enquiries as deemed necessary and may also required samples of the liquor to be chemically examined before such approval to ensure that the liquor meets required standard; (b) The correct and up to date record of all Brands and labels which are approved or whose approval is renewed from time to time shall be maintained by the Excise Commissioner, Orissa. (6) The list of Brands which are approved by the Excise Commissioner, Orissa up to 28th of February every year shall be published by him within 31st March following and offered for sale at such price as may be fixed by the Excise Commissioner. 6. (6) The list of Brands which are approved by the Excise Commissioner, Orissa up to 28th of February every year shall be published by him within 31st March following and offered for sale at such price as may be fixed by the Excise Commissioner. 6. The Excise Commissioner, Orissa may refuse approval of brands and label if he is not satisfied. (a) in the case of foreign liquor bottled in India, that the bottler whose name is stated in the application holds a valid license from the Government or any State or Union Territory in India to distil, compound, blend or bottle spirits or brew beer, and (b) in the case of foreign liquor brought into India from any foreign country and bottled in India, that the brand name under which or the label with which it is proposed to be sold in distinguishable from other brand names or labels which have already been approved or whose approval has already been applied for: Provided that while refusing to approve a particular or brand the Excise Commissioner, Orissa will state reasons to be recorded in writing and such refusal shall be made after giving the affected party a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. The permit which has been once issued shall remain valid until 31st of March next. 8. A permit already issued may be withdrawn at any time by the Excise Commissioner for reasons to be recorded in writing and after giving the affected party reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. In the light of the circumstances that exists in the present case, it is clear therefrom that the petitioner i.e. United Spirits Ltd. having been granted the necessary licenses as narrated 'hereinabove and the Board of Revenue having approved the brands which could be produced from the petitioner's licensed premises have to be accepted as the petitioner's own brands and, consequently, the bottling fee of Rs. 7/- per 1pl of IMFL as applicable to own brands which admittedly had been deposited by the petitioner-company is payable. 7/- per 1pl of IMFL as applicable to own brands which admittedly had been deposited by the petitioner-company is payable. Taking any converse view than the one we have arrived at would effectively result in stating the even if a person obtained a necessary excise license to carry out excise activities and produces his own brands, yet shall have to pay a higher bottling fee on account of the fact that the premises in which the licensed operation take place do not belong to him and are being operated by him through a lease deed. We are afraid, we cannot accept such submission. The Excise Act does not contemplate the ownership of the premises where the licensed activities could be conducted. Under the Excise Act several licenses are contemplated such as licenses for IMFL ON shops (Bars) or IMFL OFF shops and in none of such cases, the ownership of the premises is ever a prerequisite for grant of license. Persons who hire such location either on rent or on lease are being granted necessary licenses for carrying on the licensed activities. In the present case, the excise authorities having granted necessary licenses to the petitioner-company and its brands having been approved by the Board of Revenue under Rule-41-A of the Board's Excise Rules, 1965 no other view other than the conclusion arrived at by us can be taken. The Excise authorities may only charge such bottling fee on the petitioner as applicable to its own brands. We make it clear that if the petitioner manufactures brands of other companies, the higher bottling fee for other brands shall obviously charged. Consequently, the writ application is allowed and the letter dated 17.08.2013 under Annexure-5 is quashed with a further direction that the amount deposited by the petitioner-company may either be refunded to it forthwith and/or adjusted against any excise dues of the petitioner-company. Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. : I agree. Application allowed.