9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and valued under Section 4A. However, the Appellant cleared the impugned goods by determining the value under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules 2000 and paid duty accordingly. 2. A Show Cause Notice dated 16.08.2007 was issued to the Appellant demanding differential duty of Rs. 1,16,514/-, for the period May 2005 to November 2006, which was adjudicated the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2009 confirmed the amount of duty of Rs.1,16,514/- and appropriated the amount already paid under protest by the appellant towards the duty confirmed, confirmed interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed penalty of Rs.5000/- under rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. An appeal was filed by the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works reported in 2003(158) ELT 253 (T) distinguishing the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Anglo French reported in 2008(231) ELT-636 (T) (relied on by the appellant) . The decision of Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works, being passed much earlier has no force to negate the decision of Anglo French, which was passed much later. Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 6. The Ld. A.R. supported the impugned order and contended that the Hon,ble Supreme Court has already decided the issue in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat Vs Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds Ltd. reported in 2015(326) ELT 3 (SC), wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Bombay High Court and the Board Circulars cited above, We hold that the valuation of physician samples is to be done as per under Rule 4 of the valuation rules, 2000 based on the pro rate value of medicaments sold in the trade and valued under Section 4A. Accordingly, we uphold the demand of duty along with interest confirmed in the impugned order. 11. Regarding penalty, we observe that there were some contradicting decisions by the Tribunals during the relevant period and confusion prevailed regarding the correct method of valuation to be adoped for payment of duty on physician samples. However, the practice being followed by the Appellant was known to the department. Thus, there was no suppression or viola ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
