2016 (12) TMI 1116 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of physician samples cleared by the respondents - valued under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 or not? - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Themis Laboratories Pvt Ltd., & Meghdoot Chemicals Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai 2011 (2) TMI 713 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that when there is a transaction value available on sale of the impugned goods, such transaction value is to be followed in terms of Section 4 (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of physician samples under Central Excise Valuation Rules

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue involved is the valuation of physician samples cleared by the respondents, who are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations. The dispute arose when the Original Authority valued the physician samples under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, resulting in a confirmation of differential duty and penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal.

Analysis:

The Tribunal, in its decision, referred to a previous case involving the respondents where it was held that when there is a transaction value available on the sale of the goods in question, such transaction value should be followed in accordance with Section 4 (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of Section 4A are not applicable in such scenarios. This decision was supported by citing various other cases where a similar approach had been taken, including Themis Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Omni Protech Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Allianz Bio Science Pvt. Ltd., Piramal Enterprises Ltd., and CCE Vs. Sidmak Laboratories(India) Ltd.

Based on the precedent set in the respondent's earlier case and the consistent application of the principle regarding transaction value, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal. The judgment was delivered after hearing both sides and perusing the appeal records, with the order being dictated and pronounced in open court.