Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yes vs Represented By : Shri Dhaval Shah, ... on 3 February, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/543 of 2011 [Application No. E/S/552 of 2011] Arising out of : OIA No. Commr(A)/20/VDR-I/2011 dated 20.1.2011 Passed by : For approval and signature : Hon'ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, 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? No 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) : M/s. Ronald Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited Represented by : Shri Dhaval Shah, Advocate Respondent (s) : Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara
Represented by : Shri J.S. Negi, AR CORAM :
Hon'ble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/ Decision : 29.05.2012 ORDER No. _____________ /WZB/AHD/2012 Per : Mr. M.V. Ravindran;
This application is filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of amount of Rs. 90,223/- confirmed as differential duty, interest thereof and equivalent amount of penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. After hearing both the sides for some time, we find that the appellant has already deposited the entire amount of duty and interest thereof and seeking wavier of the penalty. We find that the issue involved in this lies in a narrow compass and hence we allow the application for waiver amounts involved and take up the appeal itself for disposal.
3. After hearing both the sides on the merits of the case, we find that a small point need to be decided by us is whether the appellant is required to be visited with penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for not discharging the duty liability on the P & P Medicaments, cleared by them by applying pro-rata value of sale pack cleared by them. It is undisputed that the appellant had cleared physician samples by following the principles of cost control method as provided in Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules. The law that the physicians samples needs to be valued proportionately with the sale pack was settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals 2008-TIOL-1668CESTAT-AHM-LB. It would mean that till that time, two views were possible. If two views were possible for the valuation of physician samples, appellants choosing a particular view, cannot be faulted with.
4. In view of the foregoing, the appellants appeal as regards the duty liability and interest thereof, is rejected while the penalty imposed by the lower authority under the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, needs to be set-aside and we do so.
The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(B.S.V. Murthy) (M.V. Ravindran)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
..KL
3
Appeal No. E/543 of 2011