9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2002 (M-II), dated 28-5-2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The ground on which exemption has been denied is that the total value of clearances of M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant is an independent manufacturer and there is no allegation that they are dummy unit of M/s. Medopharm. There is also no allegation that there is flow back of funds from the appellant to M/s. Medopharm and vice versa. As there was no dispute with regard to the fact that appellant is a loan licencee and also having their own factory and value of clearances as a loan licencee of M/s. Medophar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (113) E.L.T. 1036 (T). It is stated that the appellant is only a job worker on loan licence and their clearance cannot be added with the clearances of the main manufacturer as contended by Revenue and as the issue is settled one in terms of judgment referred to, they prayed for allowing the appeal. 3. Ld. DR reiterated the submission of the department. He submitted that the Madras High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto consideration the clearance figures of the main manufacturer, namely, M/s. Medopharm. The question is as to whether the benefit can be denied solely on the ground that M/s. Medopharm were not manufacturers for the benefit of notification. So long as the appellant is an independent manufacturer and also a job worker, their clearance alone is required to be taken into consideration for grant of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
