9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise, Goa v. Cosme Remedies Ltd. [2016 (4) TMI 323 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that Since there is a transaction value available at which the goods are sold by' the assessee to the distributors, and the same has not been challenged, the same should be assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act. The demand does not sustain - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/134/2010, E/CO-14/2010 - A/86474/2018 - Dated:- 15-5-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Commr (AR) for appellant None for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair Revenue filed the present appeal only to challenge the dropping of penalty by Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal, submits that the demand was confirmed by invoking extended period that means there was suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to drop the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills - 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC). 4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. However, in the Cross Objection it was submitted by the respondent that they were manufacturing physician samples for their buyers on the contract sale price and the buyer in-turn distribute the physician samples freely. Therefore, the transaction between the respondent and the buyer is on princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified in Para 6.1 above.] The facts of the case are that CRL is manufacturing Physician Samples for itself and selling the same to Cosme Farma Laboratories. The goods are not being distributed free of cost. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (supra) relates to a similar situation where the appellants were manufacturing the trade packs as well as the physician samples for themselves. In that case the appellants were engaged in selling the physician samples to the distributors who were further distributing the same with free of cost. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since there is. a transaction value available at which the goods are sold by' the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
