TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 852X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 - Dated:- 19-5-2009 - Shri T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran, JJ. Shri K.S. Srinivasa, JDR, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal is directed against O-I-A No. 18/2006 C.E., dated 28-2-2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the respondents are manufactures of P or P medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of CETA 1985. The said goods have been manufactured by them on behalf of M/s. Dr. Reddys Labs Ltd., at their factory besides their own products on loan licence basis. The respondents had requested for provisional assessment of the goods cleared to Dr. Reddy Labs vide their letter dated 15-9-03 for the period September, 2003 to March, 2004. The said provisional assessments w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to pay the duty on the goods as per the value of the raw material supplier. It is his submission that Notification No. 36/01 would be of no consequence if it is held that the respondent is a job worker and has to discharge duty liability only on the raw material cost + packing material cost + the Job worker charges. It is the submission that in a similar issue in respect another assessee in the case of Remidex Pharma Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 228 (Tri.-Bang.). Revenue has preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is his submission that in view of the submissions made, it has to be held that Dr. Reddys Labs Pvt. Ltd., are to be treated as manufacturers and the value of the goods cleared from the respondents place has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufactured, on a job work basis, it is governed by Rule 11 read with Rule 6 of the CE Valuation Rules. Further, we find that this bench in the case of Remedix Pharma Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 228 while considering an identical issue came to the following conclusion : Learned SDR reiterated the points in the OIO. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it must be held that the loan licensees are also manufacturers within the meaning of the terms as envisaged by the said Act and the rules. In other words, the court has held that the loan licensees are also the manufacturers. That means the court has not ruled out the possibility of the job worker also being a manufacturer. Therefore in our view, the Indica lab case, has not ruled that the loan licensee alone is the manufacturer and not the job worker. Moreover, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in indica case, relates to clubbing of clearances and availment of notification under SSI Scheme. In view of the Ujagar Prints case, and Pawan Biscuits case the valuation of goods cleared by job worker is well settled by Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
