Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (3) TMI 564 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Scope of the term Manufacturer - Job worker - Manufacture of medicaments - loan licences to manufacture P&P medicines - Whether the job workers in the present case can be considered to be independent manufacturers or not based on the fact as to whether they are working under the supervision and control of the loan licensee or they are manufacturers in their own right ?- Difference of opinion between learned members - Third Member Order - HELD THAT:- As regards the view taken by learned Member (Technical) and Member (Judicial), I find that the agreement between the loan licensee and the job worker is very clear that the supervision and control will be that of the job worker only and as in every job work, the manufacture has to be carried out as per the price indicated by the raw material supplier and as per the specifications laid down by the raw material supplier and the raw material supplier has a right to inspect and draw samples at each stage to ensure that the standards prescribed by him are being followed especially so in the case of drugs where he ultimately has to be held liable for any deficiency in quality where the human lives are involved. No evidence has been brought out to show that the premises had been hired on a shift basis or otherwise and on the contrary, the agreement clearly shows that the manufacturing charges will be paid at the rate specified in the Schedule on the basis of per unit and there is no reference to payment on the basis of any shift or any particular period. The agreement may be at variance with the undertaking given to the Drug Licensing Authorities but there is no evidence that the agreement has been departed with and that the payments were not being made as per the agreement or that the entire supervision was that of the raw material supplier. I am, therefore, of the view that the matter is fully covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the Lupin Laboratories case [1996 (9) TMI 559 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and followed in subsequent judgments by the Tribunal. I am therefore in agreement with the views expressed by learned Member (Technical) Shri S.S. Sekhon. The reference is accordingly answered that appeals are to be allowed as held by Member (Technical). The appeals are sent back to the referral bench for passing appropriate orders - In view of the majority order, the impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
|