2012 (10) TMI 944

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Cadila Laboratories Limited [2008 (9) TMI 98 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD] and in the appellant’s own case, it was possible to entertain a belief that the case of the appellant could be differentiated. Therefore, I consider that mandatory penalty is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, the demand for duty and interest is upheld as not contested and penalty is set-aside - Decided partly in favour of as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is of MRP since the manufacturer himself was the brand owner and was not selling the product in the market. In this case the appellant is actually selling the physician samples unlike the case of Cadila Laboratories Limited where physician samples were provided free; when physician samples were being sold to the manufacturer and the transaction value was available, appellant had entertained a bona .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X