Tribunal overturns order, grants appeals with relief. Duty based on supplier price. Precedents applied.

Fredun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Shri N.B. Medora) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Fredun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Shri N.B. Medora) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2016 (342) E.L.T. 433 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:
1. Demand of differential duty on supplies made by the appellants.
2. Whether duty liability should be discharged based on the price/value declared by the supplier or the assessable value in the retail chain.
3. Procedure lapse in filing price declaration for clearances made to specific entities.
4. Imposition of interest and penalties based on the demands raised.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of differential duty on supplies made by the appellants
The main issue in this case revolved around the demand of a differential duty on the supplies made by the appellants. The appellants had cleared P & P Medicaments to Indian Railways based on the price/value declared by the supplier, M/s. Elder Pharmaceuticals. The Revenue contended that duty liability should be discharged based on the assessable value in the retail chain, leading to demands, interest, and penalties being imposed.

Issue 2: Duty liability determination
The Tribunal analyzed the duty liability determination in detail. It was noted that the appellants discharged the duty liability based on the price of the goods cleared as per the instructions of Elder Pharmaceuticals, who had a contract with Indian Railways for supplying medicines. The Tribunal found that the goods were supplied at the price on which duty liability was discharged, and referred to precedents where additional duty could not be demanded if goods cleared on payment of duty were supplied at lower rates to purchasers.

Issue 3: Procedure lapse and price declaration
The lower authorities had highlighted a procedure lapse by the appellants for not filing a price declaration for clearances made to Indian Railways. However, the Tribunal found no error on the part of the appellants in discharging duty liability based on the price declared by the supplier. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value was in force during the relevant period, except for a specific month, and held that the impugned order was unsustainable.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment clarified that duty liability should be discharged based on the price of goods cleared as per supplier instructions, especially when the goods were supplied at the same price to the purchasers. The decision was based on established precedents and the specific facts and circumstances of the case.