2007 (1) TMI 317

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eshi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. In both these appeals, the Revenue holds that the price at which M/s. Novartis India Ltd. sold P P medicaments to customers should be adopted as the assessable value for valuation of the medicaments in the hands of the assessee herein whom the department holds are the hired labours of Novartis working under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Appeal No. E/3338/05, the Commissioner (Appeals) who has passed the impugned order held that the assessee is loan licensee for Novartis. 2. We have heard both sides on both the appeals. 3. We find that in Appeal No. 714/05, the show cause notice only alleged that the assessee was the hired labour of Novartis. Therefore, the duty demand, if at all, should have been raised against M/s. Novartis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) is only on the ground that the assessee is hired labour of Novartis. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is only to the effect that the assessee is working under the loan licence scheme for Novartis is beyond the scope of the show cause notice, cannot be sustained. On the basis of the allegation in the notice viz. the assessee is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X