Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (7) TMI 249 - AT - Central ExciseManufacturers of the goods Or Not - P or P medicaments manufactured on loan licence basis - Job worker - valuation of goods - demand differential duty - HELD THAT:- We have gone through the records of the case carefully. M/s. USV Ltd., Mumbai hold loan licence under the Cosmetics and Drugs Control Act. They supplied raw materials to the appellants. The appellants manufacture the required goods as per the specification of M/s. USV and supplied to them for the above work. They get processing charges. There is an agreement between the appellants and M/s. USV, Bombay. On going through the agreement, we are convinced that the appellant is a job worker who carries out the entire manufacturing process in their factory after receiving raw materials from M/s. USV. The agreement has got a termination clause also. According to Clause 13.2 cited, each party may terminate the agreement at any time by giving to either party three months notice in writing. The adjudicating authority has mainly relied on the Indica decision [1989 (5) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] of the Gujarat High Court and held that M/s. USV are the manufacturers of the goods manufactured in the appellants premises. The Indica case, has been elaborately gone through in the Lupin Lab case [1996 (9) TMI 559 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]. In any case, if Revenue holds that M/s. USV are the real manufacturers, they should have demanded duty from them which they have not. On going through the contract, between the appellants and M/s. USV, we find that there is no evidence to show that M/s. USV the loan licensee had hired shifts in the premises of the appellants. Under these circumstances, the reliance of the Commissioner in the case of Indica is misplaced. Hence the OIO has no merits. Therefore, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
|