TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellants: Medicine Clearance by Job Workers Excluded from SSI Exemption Calculation.</h1> <h3>MAYO INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD</h3> MAYO INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 1036 (Tribunal) Issues involved: Whether the value of clearance of medicine cleared by job workers should be clubbed with the value of clearance of medicine manufactured by the appellant for computing the aggregate value of clearance under Notification No. 175/86.Summary:The appellants availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for manufacturing medicine and entered agreements with other manufacturers for producing medicines as loan licensees. The Collector confirmed a demand for Central Excise duty and imposed a penalty, alleging that the appellants were the manufacturers of goods produced by them as loan licensees. The appellants argued that they were merely traders and not manufacturers, citing various legal precedents supporting their stance.The appellants contended that they did not exercise control or supervision over the manufacturers, emphasizing the absence of such a relationship. They argued that the demand for duty was time-barred as they had acted honestly and in good faith, relying on legal decisions to support their position.The respondent argued that a loan licensee is also considered a manufacturer, citing legal precedents to support this claim. They contended that vital facts were suppressed by the appellants, justifying the demand for duty for an extended period.The Tribunal considered the agreements between the appellants and the manufacturers, noting that the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis without evidence of control or supervision by the appellants. Legal precedents were cited to establish that the actual manufacturer, not the brand name holder or supplier of raw materials, should be considered the manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal on merit without addressing the time limit issue.
TaxTMI 