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

Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa Versus M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd

2017 (11) TMI 602 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Valuation - physician samples of medicament - case of the department is that valuation of physician sample should have been done in accordance with provision of Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rule, 2000 read with Board Circular dated 25-4-2005 - extended period of limitation - Held that: - firstly department itself has raised issue that the valuation should be done as per 110% of the cost of production. Accordingly the respondent was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

against Revenue. - E/300/08 - A/90346/17/EB - Dated:- 31-10-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants Shri. Sanandan Khairnar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that respondent were engaged in the manufacture of physician samples of medicament which had been supplied free as a market strategy by adopting valuation i.e. 110% of cost of production for the purpos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uty was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed. The respondent before adjudication paid entire confirmed duty alongwith interest. The penalty of ₹ 4,69,000/- was also imposed on Shri. Pawan Bhardwaj against manufacture for Ranbaxy. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who examined entire facts and after discussing legal issues and case laws held that there is no suppression of facts on the part of the respondent. Accor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that issue was clarified by Board Circular dated 25-4-2005 therefore it was responsibility of the respondent to follow board circular and pay the duty as per the clarification issued, therefore after issuing circular non payment of correct duty amount to suppression of facts therefore the Commissioner has wrongly dropped the demand on time bar. He further submits that respondent have not revealed the facts regarding short paymen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urt in Indian Drugs Manufacturers Assocn. Vs. Union of India[2008(222) ELT 22(Bom)]. He submits that though the order was passed on 28-9-2006, it ws reported in 2008 only thereafter issue attained finality therefore till that time respondent was of bonafide belief that the valuation adopted by them i.e. 110% of cost of production is correct and legal. He further submits that whatever valuation was adopted by the respondent and duty thereon was declared in the monthly ER1 return. Since there was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

als India ltd[2015(ELT)3 (SC)] (b) Gelnova Laboratories (I) Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Belapur[2014(300) ELT 437(TrI. Mumbai)] (c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad II Vs. ACME Health Care [2005(!89)ELT 82(Tri.)] He further submits that issue involved is of interpretation of law, no penalty was warranted. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs Alicon Pharma P. Ltd[2015(322)ELT 47 (GUJ)] (b) Marsha Pharma Ltd Vs. Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

larly filed wherein valuation adopted by the respondent and payment of duty there upon was disclosed, no suppression of facts can be alleged as held in following decisions.: (a) Commissioner of C. Ex. Noida Vs. Accurate Chemicals Industires [2014(310)ELT 441(All.)] (b) Accurate Chemicals Industrieal Vs. Commissioner[2014(300)ELT 451(Tri. Del)] He further submits that on the very same issue department has earlier issued show cause notice wherein department sought valuation to be done under Rule 8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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