9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been imposed to the tune of Rs. 70,000/-. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacture of PP medicaments on job work basis. During the impugned period, the appellant was doing job work for one, M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and paying duty on job charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. 4. On going through the entire records, it is not coming out from the records, how the appellant is involved for short payment of duty by M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. at the time of clearance the goods from their depots. In fact, the appellant is paying duty on cost of raw material plus job charges and clearing the same to the M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.. Later on, the said g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case, the drug control authority has authorized M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. to get the medicine manufactured from the appellant. The quality control was with M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The agreement between M/s Nitin Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant clearly indicated that: "GMH shall at all reasonable times allow and permit all facilities to the qualified and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lies with M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. which has marked the price on the products and only gave job charges to the appellant. The controls on manufacture, quality, raw-materials, storage, packing proves that manufacturer is M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and not the appellant. 8. Further, the reliance placed by the appellant on the case of M/s Ujagar Prints seems to be misplaced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd and not the appellant. If that is the case, therefore, without coming out any instance of involvement of the appellant for short payment of duty by M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., the observation made by the Ld. Commissioner (A) in paragraph 9 of the impugned order is contrary to the facts of the case. 7. In that circumstances, I hold that no penalty is imposable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
