Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Charak Pharmaceuticals (I) P.Ltd vs Cce, Rohtak on 15 January, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI
COURT No. III
Excise Appeal No.659 of 2008
Date of Hearing/Decision: 15.01.2013.
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.14/KKG/RTK/2008, dated 15.01.08 issued by CCE, Delhi-III]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member
1
Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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
Charak Pharmaceuticals (I) P.Ltd. Appellants
Versus
CCE, Rohtak Respondent
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Technical Member Present for the Appellants Shri K.G.Murlidharan, Co. Secy.
Present for Respondent Shri R.K.Varma, DR Final Order No.A-55207/2013 Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that the short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether during the relevant period, the physician samples of the medicines disputed free of cost by the appellant are required to be adjudged to Central Excise duty on the basis of cost of production or on the basis of pro-rata cost of the regular packs of medicines sold by the appellant.
2. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. reported as 2006(202)ELT182(Tri.). In fact it would be appropriate to refer to the latest decision of the Tribunal in the case of Allianz Bio Sciences P.Ltd. reported as 2012(283)ELT284(Tri.Chennai) wherein the entire case on the subject including the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court stands discussed. The ratio of all these judgements is contrary to the stand of the appellant praying for adoption of assessable value on the basis of cost structure.
3. In as much as the issue stands decided against the appellant, we find no merits in the appeal, the same is accordingly rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Judicial Member (Sahab Singh) Technical Member RK-I ??
??
??
??
2