TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (M/s. Ranbaxy in short) under an Agreement; that M/s. Ranbaxy supply the necessary raw materials for the manufacture of medicines; that they clear these medicines on payment of Central Excise duty on the principles of valuation laid down by the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints v. UOI - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.) and 1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.); that the Department has confirmed the demand of duty of Excise and imposed penalty on the ground that M/s. Ranbaxy are loan licensees and thus are the manufacturers of the impugned goods as they get the impugned goods manufactured under their own control or supervision and out of their own raw materials and accordingly the duty is payable on the basis of price at which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erment of control and supervision by M/s. Ranbaxy; that thus they should be treated only as a job-worker and the transaction between them cannot be given any different colour; that the decision in the case of Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 210 (Guj) is not applicable, the loan licensee was exercising supervision and control over the manufacture and manufacturer had simply given his facility for the manufacture of goods. The learned Advocate relied upon the following decisions : (a) Mayo India Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 1036 wherein the Tribunal has held that in absence of evidence of supervision and control over manufacture of goods, the job worker is the actual manufacturer and not the assessee. (b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acturers and M/s. Dolphin is manufacturing the goods on behalf of M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories under a loan licence agreement." This is further confirmed from fact that the department has invoked the provisions of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 which is applicable only where the (i) excisable goods are not sold by the assessee at the time and place of removal, (ii) excisable goods are transferred to a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the goods are to be sold, (iii) where the assessee and the buyer are not related and (iv) the price is the sole consideration for the sale. It is not in dispute that the depot belongs to M/s. Ranbaxy. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns between the Appellants and the manufacturers of the medicines was on principal to principal basis and that "the question whether the producer is or is not the owner of goods is not determinative of the liability" and "it is now well settled law that job worker using his own machinery and labour force and not supplier of raw material is to be considered manufacturer of goods." As the appellants are manufacturing the impugned goods on job work, the assessable value has to be determined for the purpose of levy and collection of duty on the basis of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints, 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 (S.C.). It is not the case of Revenue that the value has not been ascertained by the Appellants accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
