2015 (5) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re that the appellant RGR is a job worker of the medicaments of M/s. Nicholas Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. (NPIL). RGR is manufacturing goods and clearing the goods and paying duty to their NPIL on the value arrived as per the formula in the case of Ujagar Prints Vs. Union of India reported in 1989 (39) ELT 493 Supreme Court, i.e., cost plus job charges. An investigation was conducted and it was found that on the basis of agreement between the parties, the licence holder is NPIL and on behalf of NPIL, RGR is manufacturing the goods only for NPIL of these products. On the packets of the product, it is also mentioned that the goods manufacture by NPIL Derabassi address of RGR. In these circumstances, it was concluded that the real manufacture....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that in this case as per the agreement, although they are working on principle to principle basis but the authorize representative of M/s. RGR in his statement has submitted that they are manufacturing goods only for NPIL. Moreover, the manufacturer shows on the packets of the goods is manufactured by NPIL. Therefore, NPIL is the real manufacturer and on the selling price of NPIL, duty has to be demanded. He further submits that loan licence were also in the name of RGR on the account of NPIL. Therefore, duty is rightly demandable from M/s. RGR on the selling price of NPIL. 7. Heard both the sides and considered the submissions in detail. 8. We find that in this case, RGR is manufacturing goo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alaries were paid by M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and they were accountable to M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and not to M/s. Niramay Pharma. In the absence of any such evidence ewe follow the decision of Gujarat High Court, in the case of M/s. indica Laboratories, Lupin Laboratories (P) Ltd., Dolphin Laboratories Ltd., Remidex Pharma Ltd. and Cosme Remedies Ltd. and hold that M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals cannot be considered as the manufacturer and duty ahs been rightly paid on the basis of cost of production plus manufacturing expenses including manufacturer profit as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. The other plea that medicines were not marketable at the premises of M/s. NPPL as they do not have licence to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cipal basis and that the question whether the producer is or is not the owner of goods is not determinative of the liability and it is now well settled law that job worker using his own machinery and labour force and not supplier of raw material is to be considered manufacturer of goods. As the appellants are manufacturing the impugned goods on job work, the assessable value has the appellants are manufacturing the impugned goods on job work, the assessable value has to be determined for the purpose of levy and collection of duty on the basis of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints, 1989 (39) ELT 493 (S.C.). It is not the case of Revenue that the value has not been ascertained by the appellants accordingly.....