2019 (11) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2005 and January 2008 for which duty of Rs. 38,77,711/- along with interest thereon confirmed and penalty of like amount was imposed by the original authority has been approved. 2. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that these 'physician's samples' which were valued on 'cost construction basis' for discharge of duty liability were manufactured out of raw material and packing material supplied by the principal and the goods are, thereafter, sent to the principal. From this, we infer that the appellant is a 'job-worker' and that the samples are intended for distribution by the principal manufacturer. It is pointed out that the central excise authorities were insistent upon the computation of value in ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - II [2008 (232) ELT 245 (Tri.-LB)]. 4. The issue to be noted here is that the 'physician's samples' are not distributed to physicians by the appellant; these are produced on behalf of principal-manufacturer and sent to them. As these were not intended for retail sale, the applicability of section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 does not arise. Taking recourse to section 4 of the Central Excise Act,1944, the appellant has adopted 'cost construction' which is the appropriate method considering that the transaction is not one of sale. Accordingly, the decision cited by the Learned Authorised Representative would fail to meet the test of precedent. In re Medispray Laboratories Pvt Ltd the Tribu....