TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licensee) valued the same by taking the cost of production + 10% as provided in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Revenue disputed the method of valuation and alleging that the physician samples cleared by the appellant should have been valued in accordance with Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 by adopting the pro rata value of the trade pack of the medicaments. HELD THAT:- This Tribunal following the ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS, SURAT VERSUS M/S SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDS. LTD. ORS. [ 2015 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT] observed that whatever goods were sold by the appellant to their principal is correct transaction value in terms of Section 4. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... censee) valued the same by taking the cost of production + 10% as provided in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. Revenue disputed the method of valuation and alleging that the physician samples cleared by the appellant should have been valued in accordance with Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 by adopting the pro rata value of the trade pack of the medicaments, issued notice for recovery of the total differential duty of ₹ 7,16,649/- on sale of goods on principal to principal basis and ₹ 5,29,080/- relating to clearance to loan licensees along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration in the present appeals is whether the physician samples manufactured by the appellant on job work basis and sold on principal to principal basis to customers be valued as per Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2004 or Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when sold on transaction value and the goods manufactured on job work basis be assessed as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, accordingly. We find that this Tribunal following the ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. s case, observed in the case of Medispray Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as follows:- 5.1 We find that all the three appellants are manufacturing physician sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 4. In both type of clearances in any circumstances, Rule 4 valuation shall not apply. 7. We find that the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is based on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. relating to sale of physician samples on principal to principal basis to customers and Biochem Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. s case (supra) relating to manufacture and clearance of physician samples on job work basis to principal manufacturer. 8. Consequently, following the aforesaid precedent, we set aside the respective impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Pronounced in the open court) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
