2013 (9) TMI 1035 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - physician samples of pharmaceutical products manufactured by the appellant on behalf of the principal manufacturers - valuation u/s 4 or 4A? - Held that - the physician samples manufactured by the appellant would be liable to duty under Section 4 value and not on the basis of Section 4A value - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty demand on physician samples based on Section 4 value versus Section 4A value.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a duty demand of &8377; 51,77,830.58 confirmed against the appellant for the period January 2005 to December 2007 regarding physician samples of pharmaceutical products. The appellant contended that the duty should be calculated based on Section 4 value, while the department argued for the use of Section 4A value, specifically the RSP declared for the medicines. The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision in their favor for a subsequent period, where it was held that physician samples should be liable to duty under Section 4 value.

The Revenue, represented by the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, mentioned that they had appealed the previous Tribunal decision to the Hon'ble Apex Court, but no stay had been granted. However, the Tribunal noted that in the appellant's own case for the subsequent period, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal, leading to the decision to follow the same ratio and allow the appeals filed by the appellant in the present case. Consequently, the stay petitions were also disposed of based on this decision.

This judgment highlights the crucial issue of determining the duty demand on physician samples, specifically the basis of calculation between Section 4 value and Section 4A value. The Tribunal's decision to follow the precedent set in the appellant's own case for a subsequent period demonstrates the application of consistent legal principles in similar matters, ultimately resulting in the allowance of the appeals and disposal of the stay petitions.