2007 (8) TMI 596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al, Member (T)]. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of medicaments. During the period from October, 1996 to April, 1997, the appellants were independently manufacturing medicines and selling the same to M/s. Tineta Pharam Pvt. Ltd., at Rs. 8.17 per vial under the brand name of M/s. Tineta Pharam Pvt. Ltd. However, subsequently they entered into .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emanded on the ground that since they were manufacturing the goods under brand name belonging to other, they could not have availed SSI exemption. As regards balance amount, it was submitted that the only ground for enhancing the assessable value, was that the goods were subsequently sold at higher price by the appellants when they became loan licensee. This cannot be made basis for enhancing duty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1990 (47) E.L.T. 297 (Del.) wherein it was held that goods produced with customer s brand name and entire production sold to him - sale is not to be treated as to related persons, there being no mutuality of interest in the business of seller and customer - sale price to customer owning the brand name to be considered. 3. We have considered the submissions. We find that Revenue has not been a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X