Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (2) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rule 8 and assessable value would be 115% of cost of manufacture of the said goods. We find in a similar situation that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Biochem Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi reported in (2015 (9) TMI 312 - SUPREME COURT) held that best judgment method in terms of Rule 7 of Erstwhile Central Excise (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 l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 2. The respondent are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drug and P P Medicine liable to 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 on the basis of Board Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX. dated 01/07/2002. The said Circular was superseded by Circular dated 25/4/2005 to the effect that valuation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 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 imposition of penalty stating that the Original Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in imposing penalty in this case which involves pure legal interpretation on the method to be adopted for arriving at value of free samples of medicine distributed by the respondent/assessee. There is no ground to impose penalty especially when the respondent/assessee followed the instruc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Tribunal in Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE CUS, Daman reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 684 (Tri. - Ahmd.). Hence, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the Cross Objection filed by the respondent/assessee they have contested that for the whole impugned period they are liable to pay duty using the same cost construction method, as above. We find that the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian Drugs Manufacturer s Association vs. Union of India reported in 2008 (222) E.L.T. 22 (Bom.) upheld the Circular dated 25/4/2005 issued by the Board and held that physician free samples should be valued in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. As such, we find n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates