TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LS INDS. LTD. ORS. [ 2015 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT] , wherein it has been categorically held that valuation of physician samples is to be done as per Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant failed to follow the Board Circular dated 25.04.2005, which was available during the relevant period. Subsequently The Hon'ble Bombay High Court also decided the issue in the case of INDIAN DRUGS MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCN. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2006 (9) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY] . Accordingly, by following the decisions 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty 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 Appellant before the Commissioner of (Appeal -I), who upheld the order in original. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed the present appeal before this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that valuation of physician samples is to be done as per Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 violation of any of the provisions of the Act involved and hence, we hold that no penalty imposable under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
