TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....modhar, Technical Member Shri S. Venkatachalam, Advocate For the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that for manufacture of drugs on its behalf, the raw materials were sent by appellant to M/s. Safe Parentals (P) Ltd. (SPPL, for short) located at Madurai. The goods meant for manufacture by SPPL was generic medicine for which t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue, on the other hand, says that there was a clandestine removal of the goods and appellant came out of the responsibility to discharge duty liability while SPLL was a job worker. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. The moot question in these appeals is to decide who is the manufacturer. We are not concerned with any "Loan License Agreement" because such term is u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in absence of appellants representative, the product could have been manufactured according to the standard, if any prescribed. Simply because SPPL had to adhere to the quality control, that shall not bring a difference to the case. SPPL was a drug licence holder, not disputed by Revenue, was manufacturer of the goods of appellant. That has incurred liability under the Drugs and Cosme....