2012 (2) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Whether duty is leviable on clearing of samples in the laboratory situated in the factory premises assessee contended that samples were meant for testing - Held that - In view of decision in case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Dabur India Ltd (2010 - TMI - 206171 - Himachal Pradesh High Court), the samples drawn for testing and not cleared from the factory are not required to discharge any duty liability Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of assessable value for samples in a factory premises; Requirement of duty payment on samples for testing; Applicability of Bombay High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court decisions.

Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Assessable Value for Samples:
The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing P&P medicines, who were clearing samples in the factory premises and paying duty based on the cost structure. The Revenue contended that the assessable value of the samples should be based on the prorata cost of regular medicines, initiating proceedings for value enhancement under Section 4A. The appellants argued that as the samples were for testing within the factory and not cleared, no duty was payable. The lower authorities upheld the demand, leading to the appeal.

2. Requirement of Duty Payment on Samples for Testing:
The central issue was whether duty liability existed for samples not cleared from the factory premises but used for testing. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Bombay High Court in CCE Belapur Vs. RPG Life Sciences Ltd and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CCE Chandigarh Vs. Dabur India Ltd. These judgments established that samples drawn for testing and not cleared from the factory did not incur duty liability. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit condition of duty and penalty, granting an unconditional stay petition in favor of the appellants.

3. Applicability of Bombay High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court Decisions:
The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the interpretations of similar cases by the Bombay High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Both courts had ruled that samples intended for testing within the factory premises, without being cleared, did not attract duty payment obligations. By aligning with these authoritative decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not liable to pay the demanded differential duty. The judgment highlighted the significance of legal precedents in shaping the outcome of tax disputes, emphasizing consistency in judicial interpretations for uniform application of tax laws.