9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough a common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondents M/s. Mig Impex Pvt. Ltd. is a loan licensee of M/s. Hagel Capsules Industries Ltd. and is manufacturing P P medicines as per the orders and specifications of M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. placed on M/s. Hagel Capsules Industries Ltd. The medicines have been manufactured under trade mark Vibelan belonging to M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. and solely marketed by M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. Up to 1-7-2000 M/s. Mig Impex Pvt. Ltd. were filing price declaration showing the price at which M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. was selling the medicines from the depots. However, w.e.f. 1-7-2000 they reduced the price to a great extent which resulted in the issuance of the two show cause notices stating that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demands were also set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) by his impugned order holding that the prices between M/s. Mig Impex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. and that of M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. and M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. were on principal to principal basis and there is no evidence to show that there is any flow back or there was any extra commercial consideration or any mutuality or reciprocity of interest between either M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. and M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. or M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. and M/s. Mig Impex Pvt. Ltd. He placed his reliance on the Supreme Court; decision in the case of Food Specialties Ltd. - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.), Apte Amalgamation Pvt. Ltd. - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. but that of M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. 5. The respondents on the other hand have contended that M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. is not a loan licensee of M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. It was submitted that M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. was independent manufacturer who were supplying medicines to M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. as per their specification. A copy of the agreement entered into by M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. with M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. was furnished, which clearly says that M/s. Glaxo will purchase the product referred to therein from M/s. Hagel Capsule industries Ltd. on a principal to principal basis at prices to be mutually agreed from time to time and all that M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. was to ensure was that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have considered the submissions. We find that the show cause notice seeks to demand duty merely on the ground that the prices have been reduced and were not the price at which medicines were sold from the depots of M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. We note that since in this case the sale is by M/s. Mig Impex to M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. in the first case and from M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. to M/s. Glaxo in the second case and the removal is taking place from the factory gate of M/s. Mig Impex M/s. Hagel Capsule Industries Ltd. as the case may be, there is no warrant to hold that the goods are being sold from the depots of M/s. Glaxo (I) Ltd. as the same is a second sale. The manufacturing activity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
