9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue came up before this Tribunal in the assessee's own case [M/s Bausch and Lomb Eyecare India Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Jaipur [2016 (6) TMI 510 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that The transaction is between the assessee and their distributors at the price charged by the assessee from the distributors and what the distributors ultimately did with these goods is extraneous and cannot be the relevant consideration to determine the valuation of the excisable goods - reliance was placed 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 dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting strategy to promote sales of the product. 4. The Departmental authorities objected to the practice of payment of duty on transaction value of Re 1 per bottle contending that the goods were meant to be samples and not sold. Thereafter, appellant started paying excise duty on the sample bottles under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules i.e. cost of production plus 10% under protest. The objection raised by the Department culminated into the issuance of periodical show cause notices. The impugned notices alleged that that the bottles of lens care solution cleared by the appellant were required to be valued based on the price of comparable goods i..e. half the price of 120 ml bottle meant for retail sale, thus, accordingly, for 60 ml bottles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsus 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 requirement of Section 4 (1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The fact that physician samples were further given free of cost by the distributors as no price was charged by the distributors, the case cannot be held to be not covered by the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act. The said argument of the Revenue would be fallacious and wrong reason. The transaction is between the assessee and their distributors at the price cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
