9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 336 - AT - Central ExciseDemand - Valuation of physician samples - The show cause notice dated 07.03.2008 was issued to the appellants raising demand of Rs. Of Rs. 2, 48, 56, 141/- in respect of the physician samples cleared by them during the May 2005 to August 2007 - Held that - It is seen that the appellant s have contested the demand on limitation on the ground that during the period in question there was lot of confusion and some of the earlier Tribunal decision s are in favour of the assessee. See MARSHA PHARMA PVT. LTD. Versus CCE VADODARA 2009 (6) TMI 818 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - In any case note that though the plea of limitation was raised before the Commissioner he has not considered the same and has not dealt with the same - As such we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for decision on the point of limitation
Issues: Valuation of physician samples, Merits of the case, Limitation on contesting demand
In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the appellant, engaged in manufacturing PMP medicines, faced a dispute regarding the valuation of physician samples cleared to wholesale distributors. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been settled against the appellants by previous decisions, including a Larger Bench decision and a majority decision in the appellant's own case. Despite this, the appellants contested the demand on the grounds of limitation, citing confusion during the relevant period and favorable earlier Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue became clear only after the pronouncement of the Larger Bench decision and referred to previous decisions where longer periods were not applied in similar situations. The Tribunal observed that the plea of limitation was raised before the Commissioner but was not considered or addressed in the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a decision on the point of limitation, considering the legal principles established in the referred judgments. The judgment was pronounced on 22.06.2011 by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ.
|
