2004 (3) TMI 508

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant. Shri A. Jayachandran, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. - This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 16/2002 (M-II), dated 28-5-2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the Order-in-Original holding that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The ground on which exemption has be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the purpose of grant of exemption to the appellant. The appellant is an independent manufacturer and there is no allegation that they are dummy unit of M/s. Medopharm. There is also no allegation that there is flow back of funds from the appellant to M/s. Medopharm and vice versa. As there was no dispute with regard to the fact that appellant is a loan licencee and also having their own factory....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red in the case of Mayo India Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 1036 (T). It is stated that the appellant is only a job worker on loan licence and their clearance cannot be added with the clearances of the main manufacturer as contended by Revenue and as the issue is settled one in terms of judgment referred to, they prayed for allowing the appeal. 3. Ld. DR reiterated the submiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....seen from Para 23 of the order-in-original. The authorities have taken into consideration the clearance figures of the main manufacturer, namely, M/s. Medopharm. The question is as to whether the benefit can be denied solely on the ground that M/s. Medopharm were not manufacturers for the benefit of notification. So long as the appellant is an independent manufacturer and also a job worker, their ....