TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any interest in the business of each other - From the terms of the agreement it appears that Pfizer is merely a service provider to the appellant - In the absence of any proof of mutuality of interest, it cannot be said that the parties are related - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/980/06 - A/86929/17/EB - Dated:- 20-4-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Jitu Motwani, Advocate for appellant Shri. Ashutosh Nath, Asst. Comm. (AR) SDR, for respondent ORDER Per: Raju 1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, viz. Cardiovit which was cleared by the appellants to M/s.Duchem Laboratories Ltd. M/s.Duchem Laboratories Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants are related to Duchem Laboratories Ltd. by virtue of Duchem Laboratories Ltd. being a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer Ltd. Learned Counsel argued that the appellant and Pfizer Ltd. are two independent companies and not related in terms of Central Excise Act. Similarly, the appellant and Duchem Laboratories Ltd. are also independent company, not related to each other. It was argued that the impugned order holds that two are related on the grounds that Duchem Laboratories Ltd. is earning extra profit to the range of 8% to 12.2% for the product Cardiovit manufactured by the appellant. He asserted that there is no business interest in each other. Learned Counsel further argued that a show-cause notice has been issued which beyo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the assessee, agreed to render services to the assessee, in connection with the promotion of some of the assessee s products. b) assessee will from time to time communicate to Pfizer the specific assessee s products in respect of which it desires Pfizer to render services. Assessee and Pfizer in mutual consideration determine specific services to be rendered in respect of the specific products. c) assessee will during the term of this agreement continue to manufacture, promote, sell and distribute the specified assessee s products under it s own trade mark and Pfizer s role will be limited to rendering services as aforesaid in connection with the assessee s products. d) this agreement and the obligation does not perta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtue of being interconnected undertaking, Duchem Laboratories Ltd. and Pfizer become a single entity. Secondly, no evidence has been produced to establish that the appellants and Pfizer Ltd. have any interest in the business of each other. From the terms of the agreement it appears that Pfizer is merely a service provider to the appellant. In the process, the appellant pay for the services to Pfizer Ltd. It is a simple commercial transaction. In the absence of any proof of mutuality of interest, we are unable to sustain the impugned order. 5. In view of the above, the allegation that the appellant and Duchem Laboratories Ltd. are related, cannot be sustained. The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed. (Pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
