9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 978 - AT - Central ExciseFree distribution of the physician samples - Payment of duty on transaction value - Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - Following Allianz Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Commissioner Central Excise, Puducherry 2012 (7) TMI 32 - CESTAT, CHENNAI and Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2008 (9) TMI 98 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD - wherever applicant manufactured physician samples under a contract with the brand owner on transaction value, no further demand of duty is required to be confirmed Pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.
Issues: Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty for the applicant.
Analysis: The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs.46,05,728/- along with interest and penalty. The dispute revolved around the free distribution of physician samples by the applicant, who was engaged in manufacturing P & P medicaments as a job worker and for themselves. The adjudicating authority had initially dropped the demand, stating that the samples were not distributed free but sold to customers for a price. The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, leading to an appeal. Notably, the Tribunal had previously ruled in the applicant's favor in a similar case, stating that no further demand of duty was required when physician samples were manufactured under a contract with the brand owner on transaction value. The learned Assistant Commissioner relied on the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise to support their argument. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, found that the adjudicating authority had correctly dropped the demand of duty based on the facts of the case and the precedent set by the Tribunal in the applicant's previous case. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty, and stayed the recovery of the same during the appeal process. The stay application was allowed, ensuring that the applicant was not required to make the pre-deposit while the appeal was pending. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing clarity and finality to the matter.
|
