TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EDISPRAY LABORATORIES PVT. LTD., M/S MEDITAB SPECIALITIES PVT. LTD., AND M/S OKASA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA [ 2017 (2) TMI 309 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , wherein this Tribunal has observed As regards the physician samples manufactured and sold by Okasa Pvt. Ltd. to their principal, the transaction is on principal to principal basis. Therefore, whatever goods were sold by the appellant to their principal is correct transaction value in terms of Section 4. In both type of clearances in any circumstances, Rule 4 valuation shall not apply. As the issue has already been settled, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the duty on transaction value and not on the basis of MRP less abatement. Therefore, the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellants, submits that this issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Medispray Laboratories Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,Goa reported in 2017 (5) GSTL 300 (Tri-Mumbai). Therefore, he submits that the issue is no more res integra and the same has been decided in favour of the appellant. He, therefore, prays that the present appeals be allowed. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned orders. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. We find that the issue before us is that on physician samples cleared on transaction value whether the appellant is liable to pay duty in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 i.e. MRP less abatem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured and sold by Okasa Pvt. Ltd. to their principal, the transaction is on principal to principal basis. Therefore, whatever goods were sold by the appellant to their principal is correct transaction value in terms of Section 4. In both type of clearances in any circumstances, Rule 4 valuation shall not apply. 7. As the issue has already been settled, therefore, we hold that the appellant is liable to pay the duty on transaction value and not on the basis of MRP less abatement. Therefore, the appellant is correctly valued the impugned goods. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any differential duty. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. ( Operative part of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
