2010 (10) TMI 1020 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - physician samples cleared by the applicant - Revenue s contention is that the value of the physician s samples are required to be adopted on the basis of pro-rata value of the routine packs of the medicines - Held that - the issue on merits is no longer res-integra and stands settled against the appellant by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad 2008 (9) TMI 98 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD where it was held that the appropriate rule governing the valuation of physician s samples would continue to be Rule 4. Time limitation - Held that - there was confusion in the field by various decisions of the Tribunal and ultimately the issue was settled by referring the same to the Larger Bench the appellant cannot be held guilty of any suppression or misstatement with an intend to evade payment of duty - period of limitation invoked. The condition of pre-deposit of the entire duty and penalty stands waived praising the ground of limitation - the impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with stay order for depositing duty amount.
2. Method of valuation of physician samples.
3. Applicability of limitation period for show cause notices.
4. Confusion due to various tribunal decisions.
5. Waiver of pre-deposit condition.
6. Remand of the matter for decision on merits.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the issue of compliance with a stay order directing the appellant to deposit a specific amount of duty out of the total duty confirmed against them. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order. The duty amount was related to physician samples cleared by the appellant, with a dispute on the method of valuation. The Revenue contended for a pro-rata value based on routine packs, while the appellant followed a different valuation method. The Larger Bench decision had settled this issue against the appellant.

2. Regarding the limitation period for show cause notices, the appellant argued that the second notice issued was within the limitation period, and they had deposited the amount involved in that notice. The appellant also highlighted recent decisions supporting their position due to confusion arising from various tribunal decisions. The tribunal agreed with the appellant on the limitation issue, waiving the pre-deposit condition and remanding the matter for a decision on merits by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The confusion caused by conflicting tribunal decisions was acknowledged, leading to the settlement of the issue by referring it to the Larger Bench. This confusion was cited as a reason for the appellant's non-guilt in any suppression or misstatement intending to evade duty payment. The tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a decision on merits without insisting on pre-deposit reflects a fair consideration of the circumstances and legal arguments presented. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised by the appellant and the legal principles applied in reaching the decision.