9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ReNu Lens Care Solution at a price of Re 1/- to distributors as a means of marketing strategy to promote sales of the product. These bottles were sold to their various distributors (hereinafter referred to as the Distributor). The appellants were selling these samples at a price of Re. 1/- to the Distributor and the Distributor in turn was distributing these goods as a free sample to the customers to promote its own sales. 3. The distributor was giving the samples of 60 ml b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, i.e., February 2005 to July 2005, the appellants have paid total duty of Rs. 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 appellants contending that the bottles of Lens Care Solution cleared by the appellants were required to be valued based on the price of comparable goods, i.e., half of the price of 120 ml bottles meant for retail sale. The show cause notice adopted Rs. 43.50 per pack as the assessable value of 60 ml Lens Care Solution and demanded excise duty of Rs. 25,67,845/- for the period February, 2005 to July 2005. Show cause notice proposed to appropriate excise duty of Rs. 16,34,844/- already depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. reported in 2015 (326) E.L.T 3 (S.C.) observed that in the absence of any allegation made by the Revenue that the price at which the samples meant for free distribution were being sold by the assessee to distributors was not the sole consideration, such consideration fulfills the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
