9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(b)(i) read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 6(b)(i) provides for determination of value of excisable goods on the value of comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other asscssee. Suitable adjustments, of course, need to be made while arriving at the value under this Rule. In the case of Cheryl Laboratories, the arguments were exactly the same as are put-forth by the learned advocate in the present case. The Tribunal after rejecting the various contentions held that the physician samples are comparable with the regular trade packs and therefore the value of the trade packs, after giving suitable adjustments can be adopted for the purpose of determining the value of physician samples. We, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after determining the value under Rule 6(b)(ii). Penalties on the director and administrative manager are set aside allowing their appeals. The appeals are allowed. - HON'BLE JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT AND MOHEB ALI M., MEMBER (T) For the Appellant : Manoj Sanklecha, Adv. For the Respondent : S.V. Parelkar, Junior Department Representative Order Moheb Ali M., Member (T) 1. The appellants manufacture P or P medicines. During the period August 1995 to May 2000, they cleared physicians samples on payment of duty determining the value of such samples under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. It needs no mention that the value of regular packs of medicines was determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sable value of physician samples cannot be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The appellants agree that the value of physician samples has to be determined under the Valuation Rules, 1975 but their contention is that it should be determined under Rule 6(b)(ii) (costing method) and not under Rule 4. 4. The Commissioner who adjudicated the case held that value should be determined under Rule 4, invoked the larger period of limitation as the appellants suppressed the facts with an intent to evade duty, demanded the impugned amount, imposed a penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q and also for good measure imposed penalties on the officers of the company under Rule 209A, demanded interest under Section 11AB etc. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CCE, Hyderabad [1997 (93) E.L.T. 129], the Tribunal held that the correct method of valuation of physician samples is to apply the principle enunciated in Rule 6(b)(i) as the value of comparable goods is available. The learned advocate referred to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and argued that physician samples should carry an inscription that they are not for sale and such samples shall not be sold. The value of such samples which are distinct from the regular packs for sale are not comparable goods. Any attempt to arrive its value on the basis of the value of trade packs is erroneous. Finally he argued that the value as determined by the appellants based on a chartered accountant's certificate is correct. 7. On the limitation a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down in Rule 6(b)(i) read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 6(b)(i) provides for determination of value of excisable goods on the value of comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee. Suitable adjustments, of course, need to be made while arriving at the value under this Rule. In the case of Cheryl Laboratories, the arguments were exactly the same as are put-forth by the learned advocate in the present case. The Tribunal after rejecting the various contentions held that the physician samples are comparable with the regular trade packs and therefore the value of the trade packs, after giving suitable adjustments can be adopted for the purpose of determining the value of physician sampl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the declaration did not contain details as to how the value is arrived at and therefore there is suppression has to be rejected. One look at the price declaration shows that the method adopted is cost construction method envisaged in Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The department cannot claim that this fact is suppressed. As per the contention that details are not given in the declaration, we hold that nothing prevented the department from asking for those details. The appellants have not suppressed the fact that they were determining the value of physician samples under Rule 6(b)(ii). Larger period is not invocable. We, however, confirm the demand for duty on goods cleared during the normal period of limitation. Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
