9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption in terms of para 4 of notification ibid and thus not to be added in the total clearances of particular financial year - E/499/2005 - A/101/2009-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 6-1-2009 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.S. Sarova, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)].- The appellants are engaged in manufacture of medicaments and during the relevant period, were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification No. 09/2003. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the grounds that the total clearances from the factory exceeded Rs. 3 crores during the last preceding financial year and as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y utilizing the machinery and the factory of the appellants on hire basis. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the appellants' above contention. Moreover, as against Adjudicating Authority's findings that the appellants had given their factory on hire to other manufacturer (on loan License Agreement) for manufacture and clearance of excisable goods by using their machinery/factory. Their only plea is that the supplier of Raw materials namely Loan Licence holder cannot be considered as manufacturer or the goods which are actually produced by them in their factory on behalf of the said Raw material supplier. I do not find any considerable force in the appellants' argument in absence of any tangible evidence showing that they had not give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our attention to the following decisions to submit that merely because there was loan licensee agreement, it does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the factory was hired to the loan licensee. The terms of agreement establish that the goods were actually being manufactured by the appellant on behalf of the loan licensee:- (a) M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Nashik reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 267 (Tri.-Mum.) (b) CCE, Chennai-II v. Medopharm reported in 2004 (175) E.L.T. 754 (Tri.-Chennai) (c) Remidex Pharma Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 228 (Tri.-Bang.) (d) CCE, Madras v. Lupin Lab (P) Ltd. reported in 2003 (162) E.L.T. 803 (Tri.-Del.) (e) Cosme Remedies Ltd. v. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
