1997 (9) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... None, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. - Revenue is appellant against lower appellate authority's order holding that a loan licencee is also a manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) and is not hit by Explanation IV of Notification 175/86 and such loan licencee, not owning factory shall not be hit by the restrictions imposed by Para 7 of the Notification No. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icencee would not be entitled to clear those goods under exemption Notification 175/86 inasmuch as the said goods carries the brand name of another person that is Medifield Pvt. Ltd. 3. Learned SDR, Shri T. Premkumar submits that it has been held in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Cibatul [1985 (22) E.L.T. 302 (S.C.)] that the actual manufacturer of the goods is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal in the case of N.P. Industries was based on the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indica Laboratories [1990 (50) E.L.T. 210 Gujarat]. These judgments of the Bench were again followed in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Paras Pharmaceuticals [1997 (21) RLT 828 (CEGAT). A new point which appears to have been taken by the learned SDR is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C....