2025 (5) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri P. Das, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER The short issue involved in the matter is that how the valuation has to be done of physician's samples supplied free of cost for payment of central excise duty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of P & P medicines and supplying paying duty accordingly. The appellant is distributing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst the appellant. On appeal, the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We find that the issue of value of physician's samples has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of Klars Sehen Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata [2023 (8) TMI 742 -CESTAT-KOLKATA], wherein this Tribunal has observed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the Appellant failed to follow the Board Circular dated 25.04.2005, which was available during the relevant period. Subsequently The Hon'ble Bombay High Court also decided the issue in the case of Indian Drug Manufacturers and others Vs UOI reported in 2008 (@#%) ELT 22( Bom HC). Accordingly, by following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Bombay High Court and the Board Circulars....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise Rules. 2002. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the CER 2002. 12. In view of the above, we uphold the demand of duty along with interest in the impugned order. The penalty imposed under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 is set aside. The appeal is disposed off on the above terms." 4. As the appellant is paying duty in terms of the CBEC Circular No.813/10/....