9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue against order of Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside order of cancellation of registration of Ferring Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 2. None appeared for the respondents. On last three occasions, and therefore the matter is being decided without further notice. 3. Ld. AR argued that the respondents had applied and obtained registration as manufacturers to operate under the Customs (Import of Go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who held that the respondents could be registered for the purpose of facilities under the said rules. For extending this benefit, he relied on the decision of Tribunal in Tamil Trading Corporation - 2006 (198) ELT 539. He also relied on the decision of Rallis India Ltd. - 2004 (178) ELT 716 to assert that the loan licensee can be treated as manufacturer. Ld. AR pointed out that the Hon'ble Apex C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Whether a person has manufactured a particular item or whether a person is a manufacturer is a question of fact. Once the Tribunal, after appreciating relevant evidence, has come to a conclusion that the job workers were the manufacturers and the respondent - the loan licensee was not the manufacturer, we see no reason to interfere with the said findings of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the case of Tamil Trading Corporation and Rallis India Ltd. were passed without benefit of the decision of the apex court decision in Cosme Farma Laboratories (supra). In case of Cosme Farma Laboratories (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly that loan licencee was not the manufacturer. 6. In view of the fact that the respondents are merely loan licensee they cannot be treated as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
