2024 (6) TMI 755 - AT - Central Excise

Levy of Central Excise duty - physician s samples in terms of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 i.e. MRP less abatement - HELD THAT - The said issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/S KLAR SEHEN PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA 2023 (8) TMI 742 - CESTAT KOLKATA , wherein this Tribunal has observed 'We hold that the valuation of physician samples is to be done as per under Rule 4 of the valuation rules, 2000 based on the pro rate value of medicaments sold in the trade and valued under Section 4A.' The appellants are not liable to pay Central Excise duty on physician samples in terms of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue in this case is whether the appellant is required to pay Central Excise duty on physician's samples u/s 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 i.e. MRP less abatement.

Judgment Details:

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, comprising Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and Shri K. Anpazhakan, Member (Technical), heard the appeals which raised a common issue regarding the payment of Central Excise duty on physician's samples under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving Klar Sehen Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, where it was established that the valuation of physician samples should be done as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds Ltd., as well as Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

Based on the above precedents and guidelines, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants are not liable to pay Central Excise duty on physician samples under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the proceedings against the appellant were deemed unsustainable.

Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.

*(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court.)*