9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t which has been entered into by MAPL and the respondent. Therefore, the findings of the first appellate authority on the issue are no consonant with the law as the contract entered into by the respondent with MAPL was for the supply and sale of the pharmaceutical goods at pre-determined price during the relevant period normal price as well as transaction value were the requirement of the law for discharge of the Central Excise duty, which we find has been correctly applied in the case in hand. - Decided against the Revenue - Appeal No. E/3243/05 - Order No. A/87960/16/EB - Dated:- 7-6-2016 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri.SV Nair, Supdt. (AR) for appellant Shri.Gajendra Jain, Advoc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... derstanding between the appellant and MAPL reversed the order of the adjudicating authority and held in favour of the respondent herein. 4. On consideration of the submission made by the learned DR and perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved is regarding the valuation of the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondent. It is the case of the Revenue that the respondent has under valued the goods. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue for more than one reasons. Firstly, it is undisputed that the respondents herein is functioning loan license agreement from MAPL which permits them to manufacture of goods on behalf of MAPL. The respondent has done so as per the agreement entered by them with MAPL. The first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be treated principle to principle basis. The important being Merc Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2005 (68) RLT 455 (CESTAT) (ii) CCE Mumbai Vs.Pharma Com Remedies Ltd. 2003 (156) 934 (iii) Taggas Industrial Development Ltd. Vs. CCE Kanpur 9 order No.777/88 dated 31/10/1988 in appeal No.E/1252/85-C) (xv) Having regards to the aforesaid findings, I am to conclude that the real manufacturer in this case in terms of Section 2 (f) of Central Excise is M/s.RLPL (the appellant No.1) and the duty is to be charged on the cum duty price charged by the appellant from MAPL. This being the case, the duty since is already paid based on the price charged by the appellant No.1 to MAPL the demand on this count does not survive. 5. We find f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
