9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to other pharmaceutical manufacturers/brand owners of such products. 2. The facts in brief are M/s. Srushti Pharmaceuticals Pvt., Ltd, the Appellant is manufacturing 'physicians samples' under 'principal to principal' basis for other 'pharmaceutical manufacturers/brand owners of the medicaments, who have in terms of the principal to principal contract entered with the Appellant, require the Appellant to manufacture and sell to them, 'physician samples' for use by them for marketing their medicament products. Since the transaction value was as per the contract between the 'principal to principal', Appellant had discharged the Central Excise duty liability by adopting the transaction value under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant submits that issue is no more res integra and the transaction value adopted by the Appellant merits acceptance in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CCE, Surat Vs. M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd -2015 (326) E.L.T 3 SC). The Ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions; 1. CCE, Thane Vs. Meghdoot Chemicals Ltd. 2022 (380) ELT 531 (SC) 2. Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd Vs. CCE. Rajasthan. 2007 (215) ELT 327 (SC) 3. Emil Pharmaceutical Industries (P) Ltd Vs. CCE, Thane, 2016 (334) ELT 143 (Tri-Bom) 4. Omni Protech Drugs Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-1, 2011(274) ELT 377 (Tri- Mumbai) 5. Mayer Health Care Vs. Asst. Commr of C.Ex, Blore- II, 2009 (247) ELT 488 aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s' and no 'MRP' to be marked, since it is prohibited from being sold. Thus, the issue of valuation of 'physician samples' would have to be determined under Section 4 of the Act, ibid and that the Board's Circular No. 813/10/2005-CX dated 25.04.2005 also recognized that 'free samples' are also to be valued under Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The Ld. Counsel further submits that applying the Board Circular requiring that value of 'physician samples' should be determined under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, by taking into consideration deemed value under Section 4A(1), despite th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Commissionerate vide Final Order No. 20458/2024 dated 15.04.2024 (CESTAT, Bangalore). 5. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., & Cus., Daman 2011 (263) E.L.T. 641 (SC). 6. Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-I Vs. Bal Pharma Ltd.-2010 (259) E.L.T 10 (SC). 7. Commissioner of C.Ex., Calicut Vs. Trinity Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 2005 (188) E.L.T 48 (Tri.-Bang.) 8. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Ahmedabad-II 2008 (232) E.L.T 245 (Tri.-LB) 9. Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Mumbai 2006 (202) E.L.T 182 (Tri.-LB) 10. Indian Drugs Manufacturer's Assocn. Vs. Union of India 2008 (222) E.L.T 22 (Bom.) 11. Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) TMI 689-Cestat Bangalore 8. M/s. Amazon Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Commissioner Of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2023 (7) TMI 580-Cestat Bangalore 9. M/s. Medispray Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. M/S Meditab Specialities Pvt. Ltd.. And M/S Okasa Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise. Goa-2017 (2) TMI 309-Cestat Mumbai 10. M/s. Zyg Pharma Pvt. Limited. K.N. Mungi, Manager. Accounts & Auth. Signatory Vs. Cce. Indore (Vice-Versa)-2016 (12) TMI 524-Cestat New Delhi 11. Commissioner Of Central Excise, Goa Vs. Cosme Remedies Ltd. And Vica-Versa - 2016 (4) TMI 323-Cestat Mumbai 12. M/s. Gelnova Laboratories (1) Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise -2014 (2) TMI 581 Cestat Mumbai 13. Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e from the distributors. What ultimately distributors did with these goods is extraneous and could not be the relevant consideration to determine the valuation of excisable goods. When we find that price was charged by the assessee from the distributors, the show cause notice is clearly founded on a wrong reason. The case would squarely be covered under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. In view thereof, the Central Excise Rules would not apply in the instant case." 10. We find that the facts of the instant case are similar to the issue decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CCE, Surat Vs. M/s Sun Pharmaceutical (supra) and therefore covered by the above judgment, hence appeals are sustainable. 11. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
