2012 (10) TMI 944 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Valuation method to be adopted for physician samples manufactured and sold - Held that - in view of the difference in facts existing in the case of Cadila Laboratories Limited 2008 (9) TMI 98 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD and in the appellant s own case it was possible to entertain a belief that the case of the appellant could be differentiated. Therefore I consider that mandatory penalty is not warranted in this case. Accordingly the demand for duty and interest is upheld as not contested and penalty is set-aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Valuation method for physician samples

The judgment delivered by Mr. B.S.V. Murthy at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD pertained to the valuation method to be adopted for physician samples manufactured and sold by the appellant to the brand owner. The appellant, a loan licensee, had sold physician samples, unlike the scenario in a previous case involving Cadila Laboratories Limited where physician samples were provided free. The advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant had a genuine belief that the decision in the Cadila Laboratories case might not be applicable to their situation due to the difference in facts. The advocate did not contest the duty and interest but argued against the imposition of a penalty. The tribunal acknowledged the difference in circumstances between the two cases and agreed that the appellant could have genuinely believed that their case was distinguishable. Consequently, the tribunal held that the imposition of a mandatory penalty was not warranted in this case. The demand for duty and interest was upheld as uncontested, while the penalty was set aside. The appeal was decided in favor of the appellant with consequential relief, if any.

---