9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that: - Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCE, SURAT Vs. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDS. LTD.- 2015 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT, whereby it has been held that in such cases the valuation would be covered by Section 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the basis of the contract price between the two parties - refund eligible - for the limited purpose of examining whether the refund so sanctioned wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng valuation of P&P medicines, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The issue in dispute in appeals E/70/2010 and E/71/2010 concerns manufacture of P or P Medicaments by the appellants and clearance of the same for sale by affixing MRP on their products, after payment of duty on such MRP less abatement, as also clearance of physician samples for free distribution without MRP/RSP affixed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 28.01.2008, held that the said Apex Court's judgment is not applicable to the matter at hand, that there is no erroneous payment of duty on the physician samples and hence question of refund of duty does not arise. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 09.11.2009 upheld the orders of the original authority. Hence, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 2.3 Today whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso find that the ratio of that case law has been followed in a number of subsequent judgments and decisions, including the recent one of the Tribunal in Zyg Pharmaceuticals - 2017 (348) ELT 389 (Tri.-Del.). Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the refunds are very much sanctionable. However, for the limited purpose of examining whether the refund so sanctioned would be hit by unjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided the primary issue in favour of the appellants in respect of other two appeals on the refund matter, this appeal is also allowed by setting aside the portion of the impugned order relating to upholding of demand of interest amount of ₹ 4,54,419/- and penalty of ₹ 2,000/-. So ordered. 4. All three appeals disposed of on above terms. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
