9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... President and Shri K.K. Agarwal, [Order per: K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]; -1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products in their own factories situated at different locations. They also get medicines manufactured on job work basis from various job workers who have their own manufacturing facility approved by FDA. They supplied raw materials and packing materials to the job workers who manufactured medicines in accordance with specifications given by them. The job workers availed credit of duty paid on raw materials and packing material. Medicines so manufactured are cleared by the job workers on payment of duty on the basis of cost of raw materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Ujagar Prints has been decided in a number of decisions more particularly by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indica Laboratories - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 210 which was and subsequently followed by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. v. Lupin Laboratories (P) Ltd . - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 803. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. v. C.C.E.- 2005 (185) E.L.T. 206, Remidex Pharma Ltd. v. C.C.E . - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 228, Cosme Remedies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 567 (Tri. Mumbai). In all these cases the test laid down is whether the premises have been hired shiftwise or otherwise by the loan licensee which in the present case is M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and whether the goods are m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the goods and not the job workers He also submitted that the goods could not have been sold by the job worker as he has no licence under FD Act to sell the goods and therefore the goods cannot be considered as marketable and accordingly the job worker cannot be considered as manufacturer of the goods as held by the Tribunal in the case of B.P.L. Mobile Communications Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 226 (Tri.-Mumbai). However, on query from the Bench, learned D.R. agreed that the facts and circumstances of the cases and the agreement entered between the raw material supplier and job worker were same as in the case of Cosme Remedies (cited supra). Learned D.R. however argued that the agreement is at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no hiring of shift or staff or of manufacturing facilities which belong to M/s. NPPL. In their application to FDA. M/s. NPPL is being repeatedly referred to as the manufacturing concern. It also refers to the names, qualification and experience of the expert staff actually connected with the manufacture and testing of the specified products in the manufacturing premises. These staffs were never in control and supervision of the appellants and no evidence to this effect has been brought on record by the adjudicating authority. In view of this they cannot be considered as a manufacturer of goods and in support thereof they referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cosme Remedies and Gujarat High Court decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
