9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT ], wherein it was categorically held that ' The transaction in question was between the assessee and the distributors. Between them, admittedly, price was charged by the assessee 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.' Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the abse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise duty liability by adopting the transaction value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the department, alleging that the method of valuation adopted by the Appellant is not proper on the ground that Appellant had sold 'physician samples' and the same were intended for 'free supply' to physicians, hence the argument advanced by the Appellant nor the case laws relied upon by the appellant are not relevant in the instant case and a show cause notice was issued. Accordingly, the Adjudication authority considered the issue and for the period, July 2005 to April 2010 confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and also imposed penalty, and also confirmed demands with interest for the periods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re- II, 2009 (247) ELT 488 affirmed in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, 2015 (326) ELT 3 (SC) 6. Themis Laboratories Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai. 2012 (286) ELT 244 (Tri- Mumbai) affirmed in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, 2015 (326) ELT 3 (SC) 7. Meghdoot Chemicals Ltd Vs. CCE, Thane 2015 (320) ELT 643 (Tri-Bom) 8. Zyg Pharma Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, Indore, 2017 (348) ELT 389 (Tri-Del) 9. CC Goa Vs. Cosme Remedies Ltd, 2016 (344) ELT 379 (Tri-Mumbai) 10. Medispray Laboratories P Ltd. Vs. CCE, Goa, 2017 (5) GSTL 300 (Tri- Mumbai) 11. Gelnova Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belapur, 2014 (300) ELT 437 (Tri-Mumbai) 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that; even though the 'Patent and Proprietary Medicaments' in respect of which the &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4A(1), despite the availability of transaction value under Section 4(1(a) of the Act, ibid is against the statutory provisions in as much as Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation(Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 is only a general Rule and provides a machinery provision for adjustment in value on account of difference in the date of delivery. As regards reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Amazon Drugs Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE, vide Final Order No. 20687/2023 dated 14.07.2023, the Ld. Counsel submits that the said case relates to Appellant s clearance directly of 'physician samples' for itself and therefore applying the assessable value @ 115% or 110% of cost of production under Rule 8 of the V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Goa 2014 (314) E.L.T 546 (Tri. Mumbai) 7. As regards reliance on the similar decisions by the Adjudication authority, Ld. Counsel submits that in such cases the 'physician samples' were produced by the Appellant and supplied free of cost. As regards the Appeal E/25230/2013, the Ld. Counsel submits that the demand is for the period from July 2005 to April, 2010 and there is no reason or justification for invoking the extended period of time limitation, since the Appellants were paying excise duty and filing returns as per the existing provisions. In the absence of any allegation regarding suppression of facts or fraud, invoking the extended period of limitation is also unsustainable. 8. The Ld. AR also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce Pune 1-2011 (6) TMI 532-Cestat. Mumbai 15. Themis Laboratories Pvt Ltd.. Meghdoot Chemicals Ltd., Vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise. Mumbai - 2011 (2) TMI 713-Cestat, Mumbai 16. Mayer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. Of C. Ex.. Bangalore-II-2009 (4) TMI 704-Cestat, Bangalore 17. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex., Ahmedabad-Ii-2008 (9) TMI 98-Cestat Ahmedabad 18. Commissioner Of C. Ex., Calicut Vs. Trinity Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.- 2005 (6) TMI 79-Cestat, Bangalore 9. Heard both sides and perused the records. As submitted, the issue is no more res integra. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of CCE, Surat Vs. M/s Sun Pharmaceutical (supra), wherein it was categorically held that:- 10. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
