2013 (6) TMI 632 - AT - Central Excise

Duty on physician samples of P&P medicines - MRP Based or transaction value - Number of appeals - Four Show Cause Notices - One order in original - Held that - We note that original authority had dispatched only one order in original and not the four orders in original to the appellants. We, therefore, are of the view that one appeal filed by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) is maintainable and there was no need for the appellant to file four separate appeals against one order in original. As regards the stay petitions filed by the appellant, appellant directed to deposit the entire amount of duty involved in respect of all the four show cause notices

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petitions filed by the appellants seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay the recovery of duty, interest, and penalties confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Appellants cleared physician samples of P&P medicines under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while the Department felt they should be assessed on a pro-rata basis under Section 4A.
3. Four show cause notices were issued and confirmed by the original authority in a single order, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed duty amount but reduced the penalty, leading to the appellant's appeal against this decision.
5. Dispute regarding whether the appellant should have filed separate appeals against the four show cause notices or if a single appeal was sufficient.
6. The requirement of pre-deposit based on previous stay orders issued by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed stay petitions to seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay the recovery of duty, interest, and penalties confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case involved the clearance of physician samples of P&P medicines under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while the Department argued for assessment on a pro-rata basis under Section 4A.

2. Four show cause notices were issued and confirmed by the original authority in a single order, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner confirmed the duty amount but reduced the penalty, prompting the appellants to appeal against this decision.

3. The dispute arose regarding whether the appellants should have filed separate appeals against the four show cause notices or if a single appeal was sufficient. The appellants argued that since the order in original decided the four show cause notices collectively and did not assign separate serial numbers, a single appeal was appropriate.

4. The Tribunal noted that the original authority dispatched only one order in original to the appellants, indicating that one appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) was maintainable, and there was no requirement for the appellants to file four separate appeals against one order in original.

5. Regarding the stay petitions, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit the entire amount of duty involved in all four show cause notices within twelve weeks based on a previous stay order in the appellant's own case. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date, and on compliance, there would be a stay on the balance amount of interest and penalty pending the disposal of appeals.