9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the factory of the other manufacturers. In view of this, it has to be held the appellant had manufactured the goods for Loan Licensees as a job worker only and, therefore, it is the appellant who have to be treated as the manufacturer and since, the goods manufactured for Loan Licensees had been affixed with the Brand Name belonging to the Loan Licensees, and for this reason the same had been cleared on payment of normal duty, in terms of clause 3(a) of the exemption notification, the value of the clearances to Loan Licensees would not be includible for determining the aggregate value of clearances for home consumption. Similarly, in respect of the goods got manufactured by the appellant as a Loan Licensee through other manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufactured through other manufacturers under job work agreements and those manufacturers were clearing the goods by affixing the appellant's brand name and were paying duty at the normal rate on the same. The Department's case against the appellant is that their eligibility for SSI exemption during each financial year must be determined by clubbing the clearances of the goods manufactured by them on their own account on which their own brand name is affixed, with the clearances of the goods manufactured by them for loan licensees and also with the clearances of the goods which were got manufactured by them as a loan licensee through other manufacturers. It is on this basis that the Department seeks to deny the benefit of SSI exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsee had not taken the appellant's factory or a shift on lease, that for manufacture of the medicines by the appellant as a loan licensee through other manufacturers, the appellant had entered into similar job work agreements with them under which the appellant supplied the raw material and the manufacturing plan to the manufacturers and manufacturing was being done under their supervision, that the appellant in respect of the goods manufactured for loan licensees on which the brand name of the loan licensee was being affixed, were paying the duty at normal rates by treating the same as the branded goods, that in view of this, in accordance with clause 3(a) of the SSI exemption, the clearances of the goods belonging to the loan licensee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement mentioned in para 11( i ) of the Show Cause Notice, that the agreement of the appellant as a loan licensee with other manufacturers were also on the same terms, that in view of this, the value of the clearances of the goods manufactured by the appellant for loan licensees and similarly the value of the goods got manufactured by the appellant through other manufacturers as a loan licensee, cannot be included for the purpose of determining the aggregate value of the clearances for home consumption of the appellant, and that in view of the above submissions, the impugned order is not correct. He also pleaded that while the period of dispute in this case is 01.10.2003 to 31.10.2003, for subsequent period i.e. from November 2003 to 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the clearances for home consumption even if the goods manufactured and cleared for loan licensee were bearing the loan licensee's brand name. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The undisputed facts are that the appellant during the period of dispute were availing of SSI exemption under notification no. 09/03-CE. There is also no dispute that during that period, the appellant, beside manufacturing the goods on their account on which their own brand name was being affixed, were also getting their goods manufactured as a loan licensee through other manufacturers and for this purpose they had entered into a job work ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loan licensees and on which the loan licensees brand name was being affixed, the duty had been paid by the appellant at a normal rate. 5. The basic point of dispute in this case is as to whether in respect of the goods manufactured in the appellant's factory for the loan licensees, the loan licensees are to be treated as manufacturer or the appellant are to be treated as manufacturer. In this regard Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para 12 of this judgment in the case of Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd vs UOI (supra) has prescribed three conditions, namely, (a) That the goods must have been manufactured by the Loan Licensee by hiring either the factory or a shift of a manufacturer. (b) The Loan Licensee must have brought his own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
