9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption as envisaged under Notification No. 83/83-C.E., dated 1st March, 1983 but holding that the value of goods manufactured elsewhere on behalf of the appellants would be computed for determining the eligibility of benefit given under the said notification. On appeal, the ld. Collector has held that the appellant is a loan licencee for the goods manufactured in the other factories and therefore, there is a case for treating that the appellants are the manufacturers of the appellant s unit at Boisar in terms of Notification No. 83/83-C.E. which uses the words : By or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories . The ld. Collector has held that the provision of the notification is that the clearances made by or on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the judgments cited above. In the case of M/s. Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.(supra), it has been held that if the loan licensees who get their PP medicines manufactured at SSI factories belonging to somebody else but under their own supervision or control from their own raw-material and if they affix their trade name or brand name on these manufactured goods, they will be entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86 read with Notification No. 223/87 but they must be genuine loan licensees and not bogus parties who may be merely limbs of the factory owners. 5. On a careful consideration of the citation, it is seen that this judgment is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll clearances from the factory and was not available individually to each manufacturer or loan licensee on whose behalf manufacturing activity was carried out within the factory. In the case of Truechem Pharma (P) Ltd. the facts are that they were getting the goods manufactured from two independent manufacturers namely M/s. Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Aarex Laboratories on their behalf and hence on the basis of this interpretation and in the light of the earlier judgments, it was held that the demands against the appellants would be sustainable. The judgment is also in favour of the Revenue. In the case of S.O.I. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Tribunal found the appellants to be an independent manufacturer and on that ground allowed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
