2004 (6) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2.Appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 29 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The bulk drugs, namely, Frusemide, Trimethoprim, Norfloxacin, Erythromycin Estolate, Pyrantel Pamaoate and Erythomycin Sterate manufactured by the appellants are specified in the Schedule to the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (for short, DPCO). Paragraph 3(1) of the DPCO provides that the Government may with a view to regulate the equitable distribution and increasing supplies of a bulk drug specified in the First Schedule and making it available at a fair price from different manufacturers, fix from time to time a maximum sale price at which such bulk drug shall be sold. Parag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of CCE, Indore v. Panchsheel Organics - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 319. 3.In order to resolve the dispute between the parties as to whether the appellant has to pay duty on the actual price at which the drugs are cleared by it or at the maximum price fixed under DPCO, it is necessary to examine the scope of Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Central Excise Act. Three decisions of this Tribunal, namely, Orchid Chem. & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 485; Vera Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2001 (47) RLT 1059; and Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Abbot Laboratories (I) Ltd. - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 88 are in favour of the contention raised by the appellant, whereas contrary view is taken in Commissioner of Cent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....war - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 486. It is contended on behalf of the appellant before us that in Panchsheel Organics the Tribunal has not correctly understood the scope of the decision of the Supreme Court in Aluminium Industries Ltd. In Aluminium Industries Ltd. the assessee was found to have realized the price in respect of aluminium rods in excess of the price fixed under a notification issued under Price Control Order. Duty was demanded on the higher price realized by the assessee. The assessee contended that the price fixed under the Price Control Order in force is to be treated as normal price of the goods for the purpose of valuation under Section 4(1)(a) and not the higher price realized by the assessee. The above contention was accepted by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atio of Aluminium Industries it has to be taken that appellants price of the bulk drug is the price fixed under DPCO and, therefore, has to be treated as normal price as provided under Section 4(1)(a)(ii) of the Central Excise Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., in support of his contention. 6.It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that in the light of the amended Section 4(1)(a)(ii) the ratio of the decision in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. can have no application to the present case. It was also submitted that the decisions of this Tribunal in Panchsheel Organic and Kopran Ltd. have laid down the correct law by applying the ratio ....