Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yes vs Represented By : Shri B.K. Juneja, Jt. ... on 2 September, 2009
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/358 of 2006 & E/CO/214 of 2006 Arising out of : OIO No. 108-109/Commr/2005 dt. 19.1.2005 Passed by : Commissioner, C. Excise Ahmedabad For approval and signature : Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Appellant (s) : Commissioner, C. Excise Ahmedabad-II Represented by : Shri B.K. Juneja, Jt. CDR Respondent (s) : M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited
Represented by : Shri S.J. Vyas, Adv.
CORAM :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 02.9.2009 Date of Decision : 02.9.2009 ORDER No. _____________ /WZB/AHD/2009 Per : Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, A short point in the appeal of Revenue is as to whether the ceiling price fixed in respect of formulation of drugs under the provisions of Drugs Price Control Order (DPCO) is to be considered as the assessable value for the purpose of payment of duty of excise.
2. We find that issue stands decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Acme Pharmaceuticals vs. CCE Ahmedabad 2004 (169) ELT 263 (Tri. Bang.) IPCA Laborattories vs. CCE, Indore 2004 (170) ELT 40 (Tri.- LB) and CCE Pondicherry vs. Spic Pharmaceuticals Division 2005 (181) ELT 284 (Tri.- Chennai). The decision in the case of Spic stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by Commissioner (Appeals), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that -- we see no reasons to interfere. The said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (187 ELT A152 (Supreme Court).
3. In view of the above, we find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner. The Revenues appeal is accordingly, rejected.
(Pronounced in the Court)
(B.S.V. Murthy) (Archana Wadhwa)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
KL
??
??
??
??
2