TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir status as loan licensee. The declaration under Rule 57G was filed by the respondents on 19-5-1987, indicating manufacturer s name as M/s. Alvaetra Laboratories and also indicating Central Excise Licence, loan licensee as the respondents giving Central Excise Licence number of the respondents. The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner held that the respondents being the manufacturers of the excisable goods ought to have filed the declaration in their own name and not in the name of M/s. Alvaetra Laboratories and also they ought to have maintained the Modvat account in form RG 23A Part-I Part-II in their name only, and on in the name of the other party. The Modvat credit was amounting to Rs. 3,41,703.81 and Rs. 2,95,627.09. The responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector of Central Excise [1997 (96) E.L.T. 277 (Tribunal)] to say that loan licensees are manufacturers in their own right. The Tribunal in that decision has held that loan licensee is required to be treated as manufacturers in their own rights irrespective of whether they own a factory of their own or not. The ld. Counsel further cited the decision of the WZB of the Tribunal in the case of Sushripada Chemicals v. Commissioner of C. Ex. Customs [1996 (88) E.L.T. 109 (Tribunal)] wherein the Tribunal had held that the fresh declaration from an amalgamated firm is not compulsory so long as there is no change in the inputs as well as final product. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions. The declaration filed by the respondents on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Commissioner (Appeals) has also referred to the fact that the loan licensees would fall within the latter half of the definition of the term manufacturer under Central Excise Act and as such could be held to have satisfied the provision of Rule 57G. The Tribunal decisions cited by the ld. Counsel would also go to show that the loan licensees has to be considered as a manufacturer, even if they did not own a factory of their own. In the present case M/s. Alvaetra Laboratories are loan licensees and respondents carry out manufacturing activity in their behalf. In such a situation the WZB decision in the case of Sushripada Chemicals also has some relevance wherein the Tribunal had considered a case of Modvat credit by an amalgamated firm. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
