2022 (9) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.The appellant are also manufacturing physician sample of PP medicines on Job work Basis and clearing the same by paying duty at the value arrived at Pro rata of MRP. However, the unit has also manufactured Physician samples of PP medicines on their sale account and they have cleared the same by paying duty on transaction value. The appellant were issued the SCNs for the differential duty alleging that the appellant in the case of physician samples sold by them was to be valued at Pro rata on MRP Basis. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and also imposed a penalty on Shri Amit Shah, Factory Manager, cum- Authorised Signatory. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original the appellant file....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Banner Pharmacaps (India) Ltd reported in 2017 (347) ELT 686 (Tri. Bang.) 3. Shri G.Kirupanandan, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. We find that the fact of the case is not under dispute that the appellant have sold the Physician Sample of PP medicine on Principle to Principle basis to the Brand Owner. Therefore, the valuation under Section 4 (1) (a) was correctly done by the appellant. The proposal by the department that the valuation should have been done by the appellant on Pro- rata of MRP is not applicable in the present case for the reason that such valuation was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. In view thereof, the Central Excise Rules would not apply in the instant case. 11. As a result, we are of the opinion that the decision dated 10-11-2006 rendered by the CESTAT depicts the correct position of law and rightly holds that the case would be covered by the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and in view thereof Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules would not apply. Resultantly, Civil Appeal Nos. 3742-3744 of 2007 of the Revenue fail and are hereby dismissed." This Tribunal dealing with the same issue in the case of Softtech Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) wherein the following judgment was passed :- "4. We have carefully considered submission made by both the sides and perused ....