1995 (10) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods under Tariff Items 14E and 14F for slab exemption under Notification No. 83/83-C.E. - Clubbing of clearances made by or on behalf of a loan licensee from different factories for exemption calculation.

Analysis:
The appeal concerned the approval of classification lists for goods under Tariff Items 14E and 14F for slab exemption under Notification No. 83/83-C.E. The Asstt. Collector approved the classification lists but held that the value of goods manufactured elsewhere on behalf of the appellants should be considered for determining the benefit eligibility. The ld. Collector determined the appellants as manufacturers of goods at their unit in Boisar, considering them as loan licensees for goods manufactured in other factories. The notification required clubbing clearances made by or on behalf of a loan licensee from various factories for exemption calculation.

The appellant argued that job workers should be treated as manufacturers, and clearances from different units of the same manufacturer should not be clubbed. They cited judgments like M/s. S.O.I. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and M/s. Aarex Laboratories to support their stance. However, the Revenue contended that the company had two units under the same management, operating as a single unit, and thus, clearances from both units needed to be clubbed as per Notification No. 83/83-C.E.

Upon reviewing the submissions and cited judgments, it was noted that the judgments referred to were not applicable to the current case. The judgments highlighted the distinction between genuine loan licensees and mere limbs of factory owners. The Tribunal's decision in M/s. Truechem Pharma (P) Ltd. emphasized that loan licensees are manufacturers if they oversee manufacturing under their control. The judgments favored the Revenue's stance due to the specific circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the lower authorities correctly rejected the appellant's claim. The judgments cited by the appellant supported the decision to club clearances from both units of the same manufacturer, as per Notification No. 83/83-C.E. The case did not align with scenarios where loan licensees were distinct entities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.