TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent. [Order per : K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)]. - The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of P or P medicine. They were also clearing some medicine manufactured from the premises of M/s. Alkon Industries, which, according to Revenue, was the hired premises and M/s. Alkon Industries had lent the services of their expert staff, equipment and premises for manufacture of the medic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irmed and penalty of Rs. 45,60,201/- was imposed on the applicant. On appeal Commissioner (Appeals), required the applicant to pre-deposit 50% of the duty as well as penalty and on their failure to do so, after rejecting the modification application, he dismissed the appeal for non compliance with the order of pre-deposit. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the applicant submits that M/s. Alkon Industr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rker is considered as a manufacturer and factory gate of job worker is deemed factory gate and removal of goods from the premises of job worker is deemed removal. This view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Cosme Remedies Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (186) E.L.T. 338. Reliance was also placed on the CESTAT's decisions in the cases of Elvina Pharmaceuticals - 2005 (70) RLT 734, Ontop Pharmaceuticals -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sting equipments of M/s. Alkon Industries. In view of this, the Commissioner (Appeals)' order does not require any interference and should be upheld. 4. We have considered the submissions. We find that the applicant is taking a stand that the job worker is an independent manufacturer in their own rights. However, this is not supported by any evidence, as there is no written agreement or memo....