9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... li, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. - These appeals are directed against two separate original orders passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise confirming demands of duties on P & P medicines manufactured by the appellant and cleared during the period 1982 to 1984 and 1984-85 respectively. 2. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 19 of the Drugs Price (Control) Order, 1979. In other words, the duty payable at the Tariff rate on the basis of the Government fixed retail price list less 15% is to be calculated. This amount of duty would have to be paid by the manufacturer and the excess beyond this limit out of the duty payable on the value under Section 4 of the Act is exempt. 3. Appellant was filing successive price ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty actually payable. Show cause notices proposed demands of differential duty on this basis. Though appellant resisted the demands, the Additional Collector confirmed the demands. Hence these appeals. 5. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR explained that the trade discount of 15% referred to in the price lists was the declared trade discount and assessable value would be computed on that basis, though a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such amount and arriving at the net value and compute duty at Tariff rate on such value. That was precisely what the appellant did in the price lists. The price lists arrived at the assessable value based on the retail price after deducting the duty element and the statutory discount of 15% (not trade discount). Duty calculated on such amount had to be paid under the notification and appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department has no case that the retail price for the medicines manufactured by the appellant was not the same as the statutory price. Therefore, no case of violation of proviso (2) has been made out. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we find that the appellant had paid correct amount of duty under the notification. The impugned orders are not sustainable and are set aside. The appeals are all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
