9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member ( Judicial ) Shri. Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. A.K.Saini, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal 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 ₹ 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 charges plus cost of the raw material and clearing the same to the M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. transferring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of personal hearing. In this matter, I observe that there are two issues in the matter: 1. Whether the appellant is to be treated as manufacturer in this case. 2. What will be the assessable value of the medicaments manufactured by M/s Nitin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., at the premises of the appellant in term of Section 4 of CEA, 1944. 6. 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2004 at which the goods are sold from the premised of principle manufacturer. 9. From the above, it is evident that the appellant has conspired to appear as job worker to evade excise duty which was leviable on the transaction value at which M/s Nitin Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. was to sell in the wholesale market. 6. I have gone through the said order of the Ld. Commissioner (A) wherein, he himself has observed that control of manufacture quality, raw material, storage, packing proves that manufacturer is M/s Nitin 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 obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
