Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Bhopal Versus M/s Lupin Ltd.

2016 (2) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

MRP price - Demand of differential duty for the period 14/7/2004 to 06/1/2005 in terms of value to be adopted under Rule 4 of the said Rules - Held that:- As the respondent/assessee have correctly followed the valuation for the impugned goods in terms of Board Circular dated 01/7/2002. The Board has categorically stated that since the goods are not sold, Section 4 (1) (a) will not apply and the value has to be arrived at in terms of Valuation Rules. No specific Rule covered such a contingency. E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 is the correct method. The Tribunal in the case of Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE, Daman reported in (2006 (7) TMI 30 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) held that physician sample distributed free of cost are to be valued under Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules.

Duty liability - period of duty payment - assessee have contested that for the whole impugned period they are liable to pay duty using the same cost construction method - Held that:- W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the above discussion, the issue involved in this case is one of interpretation of valuation provisions. The Board itself changed the view in 2005 superseding the instruction issued in 2002. As such, we find no justification to impose a penalty on the respondent/assessee on this issue. - Excise Appeal No. 1551 of 2007 with C.O. No. 238 of 2007 - Final Order No. 50022/2016 - Dated:- 12-1-2016 - SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Central Excise Duty. They were clearing physician samples meant for free distribution as part of marketing strategy. A dispute arose regarding assessable value to be adopted for these physician samples for discharging Central Excise duty. The respondent/assessee was discharging duty in terms of Rule 11 readwith Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The value was arrived at on cost construction basis i.e. 110%/115% of the cost of production o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or demanding differential duty on these impugned goods on valuing them based on MRP price of such medicines. The Original Authority confirmed the differential duty for the period 07/1/2005 to 15/07/2005 and imposed a penalty on the respondent/assessee. For the period 14/07/2004 to 06/1/2005 the demand was dropped as it was held that correct duty has been paid in terms of Board Circular dated 01/07/2002. 3. The Revenue preferred appeal against the original order and the Commissioner (Appeals) vid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules and not on the basis of MRP. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that they have filed a Cross Objection in this case. He submitted that Rule 4 is not applicable as MRP based goods sold are not to be considered as such goods vis-vis the physician samples. There is no legal basis to assume that while applying Rule 11, Rule 4 should be given preference over Rule 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee strongly contested the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

both the sides and examined appeal records. The Department appeal is to confirm the demand of differential duty for the period 14/7/2004 to 06/1/2005 in terms of value to be adopted under Rule 4 of the said Rules. We find that the respondent/assessee have correctly followed the valuation for the impugned goods in terms of Board Circular dated 01/7/2002. The Board has categorically stated that since the goods are not sold, Section 4 (1) (a) will not apply and the value has to be arrived at in ter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version