2006 (3) TMI 634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs listed in the Schedule to the Drug (Price Control) Order [DPCO, for short] issued by the Drug Control Authority. During the periods of dispute, they sold their bulk drugs at a price lesser than the maximum price fixed by DPCO. The department took the view that they should have adopted the D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... consideration in these appeals is whether the maximum price fixed in DPCO was liable to be adopted as the basis of assessable value of bulk drugs. According to the respondents, they were at liberty to sell their products at lower prices than those fixed in DPCO and the actual price would be the normal price under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act for the purpose of determination of assessable v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of assessable value. In these appeals, the appellant has relied on the Supreme Court s judgment in Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Collector, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 486 (S.C.). We find that the case considered by the apex court was correctly distinguished, on facts, by the Larger Bench in the case of IPCA Laboratories (supra). 3. In view of the Larger Bench decision, we sustain the impugned order and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X