Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Cus. And C. Ex. vs Pharmacom Remedies (P) Ltd. on 25 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(156)ELT934(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants manufacture goods on their own behalf as well as on job work basis. The Additional Commissioner held that the credit earned for manufacture on behalf of the loan licensee could not be utilised for payment of duty on the goods manufactured by the appellants.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision holding that the wording of the rule did not give rise to such interpretation. The Revenue in this appeal cites some instructions of the board to the effect that a loan licensee should be treated as a manufacturer in terms of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On this ground it is claimed that the credit taken on behalf of the loan licensee was not permitted to be used for clearance of other goods.
3. The respondents were not present. The Revenue was represented by Shri S.V. Parelkar.
4. The instructions of the board are not direct opposition to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints & Others and therefore, do not survive. The maintenance of separate registers by the present respondents does not create separate persona when manufacturing for himself as also for the loan licensee. The respondents continue to remain a manufacture and were therefore entitled to utilise the Modvat credit, no matter in which stream the credit originated.
5. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.