9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 913 - AT - Central ExciseValuation of manufactured goods - to be valued under Section 4A or section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Physician sample of Medicaments sold to the dealer for free distribution to the Doctors on which not for sale is mentioned - HELD THAT - The appellant have manufactured and cleared the goods i.e. Physician sample mentioning clearly on the pack that it is not for sale. Since the goods is not for sale and no MRP is affixed on the product, the goods cannot be valued under Section 4A as the same is not for retail sale. Accordingly, the correct provision for valuation of physician sample is section 4, where the Excise duty is payable on the transaction value. This issue is no longer res-integra as the same has been finally decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS, SURAT VERSUS M/S SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDS. LTD. ORS. 2015 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT the relevant order of the Hon ble Apex Court has held that Excise duty is payable in terms of section 4(i)(a) not under section 4A but on pro rata value of good cleared under section 4A i.e. on the transaction value between the assessee and distributor to whom, the physician samples were sold. In view of the above Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the appellant s own case issue is finally settled in favour of the appellant. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on the valuation under Section 4A in respect of Physician sample of Medicaments sold to the dealer for free distribution to the Doctors on which "not for sale" is mentioned or the valuation should be done under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Judgment Details: The appellant, represented by a Learned Cost Accountant, argued that previous judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal were in their favor. The Tribunal considered the issue of whether the value of Physician samples, clearly marked as "not for sale," should be governed by Section 4A or Section 4. It was concluded that since the goods were not for retail sale and no MRP was affixed, valuation under Section 4 was appropriate, where excise duty is payable on the transaction value. This decision was supported by a relevant order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which clarified the application of Section 4(1)(a) for excisable goods. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 4 for valuation of excisable goods and emphasized the importance of transaction value for determining excise duty liability. It was noted that the case involving Physician samples was between the assessee and the distributors, where a price was charged by the assessee. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the samples being given free of cost to physicians affected the valuation, as the relevant transaction was between the assessee and the distributors. Therefore, the case fell under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, and Rule 6(b)(ii) was deemed inapplicable. Based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the appellant's own case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. The same issue being considered in multiple appeals of the Revenue led to the dismissal of all the Revenue's appeals in line with the aforementioned order. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 12.09.2023 by the Hon'ble Members of the Tribunal.
|
