9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t such valuation was already opted by the appellant in case of removal of goods manufactured on job work basis for the reason that the said transaction does not involve sale. Since in the present case the transaction is clearly of sale on Principle to Principle basis, the principle of pro rata of MRP shall not apply. From the judgment, in the case of SOFTECH PHARMA PVT. LTD. VERSUS C.C.E, S.T. - DAMAN (VICE-VERSA) [ 2019 (5) TMI 575 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] , it is settled that in case of manufacture and sale of Physician Sample valuation is governed under Section 4 (1)a) of central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the issue is no longer res- integra. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.2-3 of 2012, Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact is that the appellant have sold the physician sample on behalf of the brand owner of the medicine therefore, the value was correctly arrived at under section 4 (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the issue is already covered by the various judgments including the Supreme Court judgment as follows:- Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus., Surat Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. reported in 2015 (326) E.LT3 (S.C.) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat II reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T 42 (Tri. - Mumbai) Softtech Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E, S.T. Daman (Vice Versa) reported in 2019 (5) TMI 575-CESTAT AHMEDABAD Commissioner of Central Excise, VAPI Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Inds. Ltd. repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. wherein the following judgment was passed:- 10 . As mentioned above, the assessee had put up the defence that since physician samples were not meant for sale by distributors but were to be given free of cost to the physicians, the assessee had charged lesser price. This statement of the assessee had not been doubted. The only reason in the show cause notice given was that since the physician samples were given free of cost by the distributors and no price was charged, the case was not covered by the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. This is clearly fallacious and wrong reason. The transaction in question was between the assessee and the distrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de pack, if sold, should be governed by section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the duty is required to be paid on transaction value. Hence, the contention of the department that the valuation should be done pro-rata of MRP based value is not correct. This issue has been considered time and again by this Tribunal and held that in case of Physician samples sold, the valuation should be done on transaction value in terms of Section 4. Accordingly, the demand is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed. The Revenue s appeal is to enhance the penalty invoking section 11AC. Since the demand itself does not sustain, Revenue s appeals does not survive and the same is dismissed. From the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
