2018 (5) TMI 1452

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Heard both the sides. 2. These appeals are filed against respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) since involve common issue are taken up together for disposal. 3. Briefly stated the fact of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants during the relevant time manufactured and sold PP Medicines, both in Trade pack and Physician sample pack (P.S. Pack); the later was meant for free distribution as samples. The assessable value of the Trade Pack was determined on the MRP, less abatement under Section 4A of CEA, 1944, whereas the P.S.Pack, meant for free distribution as samples to the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch the goods are sold and cleared from the factory to distributors did not represent the correct sale price accordingly, it should be assessed under Section 4(1)(b) of CEA, 1944. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both the sides. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on very similar facts in the appellants own case observed as follows: "2. The dispute pertains to the 'transaction value' that is to be fixed in respect of goods sold by the SPIL to its distributors as physician samples. It is not in dispute that insofar as the assessee is concerned, it is selling these physician samples to its distributors for a price. However, since these are physician samples, the distributors in turn, supplied these samples to the physici....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the physician sample pack were for free distribution. ...................................................... 10. As mentioned above, the assessee had put up the defence that since physician samples were not meant for sale by distributors but were to be given free of cost to the physicians, the assessee had charged lesser price. This statement of the assessee had not been doubted. The only reason in the show cause notice given was that since the physician samples were given free of cost by the distributors and no price was charged, the case was not covered by the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. This is clearly fallacious and wrong reason. The transaction in question was between the assessee and the distributors. Between t....