TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umar, Adv., Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv., Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Adv., Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv., Mr. Anandh K., Adv., Mr. T. D. Satish, Adv., Mr. Vikram S. Nankani, Sr. Adv. And Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. ORDER Civil Appeal Nos. 3742-3744 of 2007 Civil Appeal No. 3263 of 2009 In these two sets of appeals, the assessee is M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited (SPIL). Though the issue involved is identical, as would be noted hereinafter, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') has rendered conflicting decisions which is precisely the reason that one appeal is filed by the Revenue against the judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value was required to be maintained as per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. Thus, bringing the case out of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and putting it under clause (b) thereof. A reference was made to the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). In the Show Cause Notice, thus, provisions of Rule 6(b) of the Rules was sought to be applied and on that basis, it was proposed to have the same value at which the trade pack goods were sold. In the reply given by the assessee, the assessee contented that the difference in the price of trade pack and physician sample pack was due to the fact that the physician sample pack were for free distribution. The defence of the assessee was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Member has concurred with the view taken by the Technical Member on the same reason as was given by the Technical Member. Against this order, assessee has filed Civil Appeal No. 3263 of 2009. We may first take up Civil Appeal No. 3263 of 2009. This has to be allowed for simple reason that the aforesaid reasons given by the CESTAT in support of its view clearly reveals that CESTAT has gone beyond the Show Cause Notice inasmuch as this was not even the case set up by the Department in the Show Cause Notice. As already noted above, the only ground which was mentioned in the Show Cause Notice was that since the goods had not been sold, the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Act could not be applied. We find that in the Show Cause Notice, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the time and place of the removal, the assessee and the buyer of the goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration for the sale, be the transaction value; (b) in any other case, including the case where the goods are not sold, be the value determined in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the price-cum-duty of the excisable goods sold by the assessee shall be the price actually paid to him for the goods sold and the money value of the additional consideration, if any, flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in connection with the sale of such goods, and such price-cum-duty, excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id or payable for the goods, when sold, and includes in addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of the sale or at any other time, including, but not limited to, any amount charged for, or to make provision for, advertising or publicity, marketing and selling organization expenses, storage, outward handling, servicing, warranty, commission or any other matter; but does not include the amount of duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, actually paid or actually payable on such goods." As per the aforesaid provision, it is the transaction value which is to be determined and on whic....