2006 (11) TMI 375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent the services of their expert staff, equipment and premises for manufacture of the medicine under the supervision and control of the applicant. Up to May 2003, the medicine were cleared by M/s. Alkon Industries, which the applicant claims to be its job worker and independent manufacturer in their own rights and duty was being paid at the price at which the medicines were sold by the applicant in the wholesale market. However, with effect from June 2003, the basis of valuation was changed to 115% of the cost of manufacture. This change in valuation was not accepted and show cause notices were issued for recovering differential duties on the ground that the goods were required to be assessed on the basis of prevalent transaction value. Sho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oval. 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 - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 218 and others. In view of this, it was submitted that they have a strong case on merits, duly supported by Tribunal's decisions and therefore the requirement of paying 50% of duty and penalty was very harsh and the appeal should not have been rejected for non compliance of the pre-deposit order, when they have a very strong case on merits. 3. The Ld. D.R., for the Revenue, however, submits that in this case the job worker was not independent job worker but was working under ....