2013 (6) TMI 412 - AT - Central Excise

MRP Based valuation - section 4A - stay - formulations/ medicines - period of limitation - held that - as the appellant is required to print the retail sale price on the product under the DPCO. At the same time, we find that the regulation 15 of the DPCO does talk about the printing of the price on the drugs/medicines, which are offered for retail sale. - All these issues need to be gone into detail which can be done only at the time of final disposal of appeal. In our considered view, the appellant needs to be put to some terms and conditions to hear and dispose of their appeal. - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Differential duty demand on formulations/medicines cleared to institutional buyers under section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Prima facie case, undue hardship, and limitation regarding pre-deposit.
3. Requirement of printing retail sale price under Drugs (Price Control) Order (DPCO) for products cleared to institutional purchasers.
4. Question of limitation for clearances made during 2005 to 12/2008.
5. Terms and conditions for hearing and disposal of the appeal.

Analysis:

1. Differential duty demand on formulations/medicines:
The case involved a differential duty demand on the appellant for not discharging duty liability on formulations/medicines cleared to institutional buyers, alleging non-valuation under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Prima facie case, undue hardship, and limitation:
The appellant's counsel argued that the differential duty demand caused undue hardship as the appellant had a prima facie case. They also raised a question of limitation, citing regular return filings and audits as evidence against suppression allegations.

3. Requirement of printing retail sale price under DPCO:
The appellant's counsel referenced the DPCO, specifically regulation 15, which mandates displaying prices. They relied on legal precedents and circulars to support their argument that duty liability should be based on the printed retail sale price for products sold to institutions like Government Hospitals.

4. Question of limitation for clearances during 2005 to 12/2008:
The Tribunal found the limitation issue arguable, especially for clearances made from 2005 to 12/2008. Further examination was deemed necessary after a detailed review of the records.

5. Terms and conditions for hearing and disposal of the appeal:
Considering the limitation and merits of the appeal, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a specified period. Compliance with this directive would allow for the waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining amounts involved, with recovery stayed until the appeal's final disposal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including differential duty demand, the requirement of printing retail sale prices, questions of limitation, and the terms set for the appeal's hearing and disposal.