9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat-II reported (2004 (12) TMI 501 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) and it was held that inasmuch as the smaller packs were being sold by the assessee, though they were meant for further free distribution by the distributors, the price at which the same were being sold represents the transaction value and is required to be adopted as the assessable value in terms of the provisions of Section 4. We further find that on appeal against the said decision by the Revenue, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Ex. & Cus, Surat Versus Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. (2015 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT ) observed that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Mishra, DR ORDER PER: ARCHANA WADHWA M/s. Bausch Lomb Eyecare (India) Pvt. Ltd. SP-810-811-A, RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) are engaged in the manufacture of Lens Care Solution falling under Tariff Item No. 3307 9020 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants clear the final products manufactured by them on payment of appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon. 2. During the period February, 2005 to July, 2005, the appellants were selling sample packs of 60ml bottles of Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Solution. The appellants started paying excise duty on the sample bottles under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, i.e., cost of production plus 10% under protest. In this regard, the appellants wrote a letter dated 30th August, 2005 to the Excise Department. The appellants also wrote letter dated 29th September, 2005 to the Excise Department vide which they clearly explained as to how the goods have to be valued under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1994 only. During the period, i.e., February 2005 to July 2005, the appellants have paid total duty of ₹ 16,34,844/- based on Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, i.e., cost of production plus 10%. 6. In the above background, show cause notice dated 3rd February, 2006 was issued to the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the present appeal is as to whether the value of Re. 1/- adopted by the appellant in respect of the small bottles of 60 ml of Lens Care Solution is the correct assessable or the value has to be raised, by adopting the value of the full commercial bottle of 120 ml. We note that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat-II reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 42 (Tri.- Mumbai) and it was held that inasmuch as the smaller packs were being sold by the assessee, though they were meant for further free distribution by the distributors, the price at which the same were being sold represents the transaction value and is required to be adopted as the assessable va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
