TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, the two appeals are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The main value for determination in these two appeals is whether the value of clearances effected by M/s. HAB Pharmaceuticals and M/s. Cyto Pharmaceuticals unit should be added to the value of the goods manufactured by M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals which got their goods manufactured from these two firms. 3. The facts of the case are that M/s. HAB Pharmaceuticals and M/s. Cyto Pharmaceuticals are two small-scale units engaged in the manufacture of P.P. Medicines. They manufacture these medicines on their own account as well as on behalf of others. In this case both these units manufactured medicines for M/s. Group Pharmaceuticals under Group Phar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the clearances effected from a factory by one or more manufacturer are to be clubbed does not mean that clearances of a manufacturer cleared from other factory can be clubbed for the purpose of this para. The Collector (Appeals) also observed that the explanation to this Notification clearly laid down that when the specified goods manufactured by a manufacturer are affixed with a brand name or trade name of another manufacturer or trader, such specified goods shall not, merely by reason of that fact, be deemed to have been manufactured by such other manufacturer or trader. The learned Collector (Appeals), therefore, accepted the appeal of the assessees. 4. Shri A.K. Madan, the learned SDR appearing for the appellants submitted that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was wrong in holding that the brand name holder was not the manufacturer. 5. Shri G.C. Biradar, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that there was no financial link up or any other common funding between brand name holder and the manufacturers. He submitted that that the brand name holder was private limited company and the manufacturers were partnership concerns: that they had separate central excise licences, separate sales tax numbers, separate income tax numbers and separate SSI certificates. He submitted that there is no evidence brought on record to show that there was any financial link up or one unit being financed by the other, or one unit drawing funds from common pool of the other two units. He submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturer for these goods. We find that according to Section 2(f) of CESA, 1944 which defines `manufacture and `manufacturer , a brand name holder or supplier of raw material does not become manufacturer and therefore, the duty liability cannot be fastened on him. The Department has not brought on record any evidence to show that there was financial link up or the manufacturers were employees of the brand name holder or vice versa. Having regard to the facts as also the legal position, specifically the rulings of the Apex Court in the case of Ujagar Prints, we hold that the brand name holder and the actual manufacturers are independent units and shall be eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 separately if they fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
