TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta basis. Thus, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal being devoid of merit, accordingly is dismissed. - Hon'ble Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Mr. Pullela Nageswara Rao, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : None. For the Respondent : Mr. P. Saravana Perumal, AR. ORDER PER: D.M MISRA This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 94/2010 dated 16/02/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Mangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of P P Medicines falling under Chapter Sub Heading 3003.10.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They manufacture the said goods on loan license basis for M/s. Wallace Pharmaceuticals Ltd. During the rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that further adjournment will not yield any result. Consequently, the appeal is taken for hearing on the basis of records and after hearing the learned AR for the Revenue. 4. Learned AR submits that the issue of valuation of physician sample is no more res integra and covered by the recent judgment of Tribunal at Bangalore in the case of M/s. Amazon Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore vide Final Order No. 20687/2023 dated 14/07/2023. He submits that the Tribunal taking note of the principle of law settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex. Ahmedabad-II 2008 (232) E.L.T. 245 (Tri.-LB) and Hon ble Supreme Court in Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. Cus., Daman - 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, we hold that physician samples have to be valued on pro-rata basis for the relevant period. This principle has been followed by this Tribunal in Amazon Drugs Pvt. Ltd. and it is observed as follows: 14. Thus, the contention of the appellant before the Supreme Court that the free physician samples have to be assessed on the cost of manufacture plus 15% profit as contemplated under rule 8 of the 2000 Rules was not accepted by the Supreme Court. 15. In the present appeal, the appellant has also determined the valuation under rule 8 of the 2000 Rules by adding 15% profit to the cost of manufacture. Such a determination of the assessable value has not been accepted by the Supreme Court. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
