TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esides their own products on loan licence basis. The respondents had requested for provisional assessment of the goods cleared to Dr. Reddy Labs vide their letter dated 15-9-03 for the period September, 2003 to March, 2004. The said provisional assessments were finalized by the adjudicating authority by Final Order No. 1/05 dated 20-10-2005/31-10-05 and confirmed the demand of differential duty along with interest on the ground that the price at which Dr. Reddys labs are selling the medicines from their Depot will be the basis for determining the assessable value and duty payable by the respondents as a loan licensee. Aggrieved by such an order, the respondents filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue has preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. It is his submission that in view of the submissions made, it has to be held that Dr. Reddys Labs Pvt. Ltd., are to be treated as manufacturers and the value of the goods cleared from the respondents place has to be determined based upon the sale price of the Dr. Reddys Labs. 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite notice. Since the matter is of 2006, we take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation from the respondents. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned DR. and perused the records. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondent to Dr. Reddys Labs Ltd., should be o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w materials to the appellants. The appellants manufacture the required goods as per the specification of M/s. USV and supplied to them for the above work. They get processing charges. There is an agreement between the appellants and M/s. USV, Bombay. On going through the agreement we are convinced that the appellant is a job worker who carried out the entire manufacturing process in their factory after receiving raw materials from M/s. USV. The agreement has got a termination clause also. According to Clause 13.2 cited, each party may terminate the agreement at any time by giving to either party three months notice in writing. The adjudicating authority has mainly relied on the Indcia decision of the Gujarat High court and held that M/s. US....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Gujarat High Court in indica case, relates to clubbing of clearances and availment of notification under SSI Scheme. In view of the Ujagar Prints case, and Pawan Biscuits case the valuation of goods cleared by job worker is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, Revenue cannot ignore the Supreme Court ruling in the valuation of goods cleared by job worker. Moreover various courts and the Tribunals have held that the supplier of raw materials is not the manufacturers and it is only the job worker who is the manufacturer. In any case, if Revenue holds that M/s. USV are the real manufacturers, they should have demanded duty from them which hold that M/s. USV are the real manufacturers, they should have demanded duty from them wh....