https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771253 MRP-marked medicines cleared through distributors, and not shown as clearly excluded for institutional or industrial supply by a "not for retail sale" endorsement, were treated as assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The absence of full disclosure in returns as to which clearances were under Section 4 and which under Section 4A justified invocation of the extended limitation period, so the duty demand and interest were sustained against the company. A penalty on the company was also upheld with the confirmed duty demand. By contrast, penalty on the manager under Rule 26 was set aside because no specific role, personal benefit, or independent culpability was recorded. en-us Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 May 2025 08:46:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771253 MRP-marked medicines cleared through distributors, and not shown as clearly excluded for institutional or industrial supply by a "not for retail sale" endorsement, were treated as assessable under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. The absence of full disclosure in returns as to which clearances were under Section 4 and which under Section 4A justified invocation of the extended limitation period, so the duty demand and interest were sustained against the company. A penalty on the company was also upheld with the confirmed duty demand. By contrast, penalty on the manager under Rule 26 was set aside because no specific role, personal benefit, or independent culpability was recorded. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771253