Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Naxpar Lab Pvt. Ltd on 11 October, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD
COURT:
II
Appeal No.E/102/2010 (Application No.E/S/107/2010)
Arising out of: OIA No.KRS/360/VAPI/2009, dt.20.10.09
Passed by: Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vapi
For approval and signature:
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No
Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the .
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen
the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Appellant:
M/s Naxpar Lab Pvt. Ltd
Respondent:
CCE Vapi Represented by:
Written submission by the Assessee; Shri J.S. Negi, SDR for the Revenue.
CORAM:
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:11.10.10 ORDER No. /WZB/AHD/2010 Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa:
The appellants have filed written submissions, which stand gone through by us. We have heard the learned SDR Shri J.S. Negi.
2. After going through the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the appeal stand dismissed by him for non-compliance with the stay order directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.28 lakhs out of total duty of Rs.28,08,769/-. It is the appellants contention that they have already deposited an amount of Rs.9,94,470/-. The issue is as regards valuation of physicians samples manufactured by the appellant on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies and sold to them. The said physicians samples cleared by the appellant by paying duty on the assessable value, based upon the contracted value entered between themselves with pharmaceutical companies for whom they were manufacturing the goods. They have relied upon the Tribunals decision in the case of M/s Shwarde Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai 2009 (238) ELT 311 (Tri-Mumbai) as also in the case of M/s G.S. Pharbutor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur 2008 (232) ELT 150 (Tri-Del.).
3. We find that the Tribunal in above decisions, have held that physicians samples manufactured by the assessee and sold to principle manufacturers would not attract Mumbai High Court judgment in case of M/s Indian Drugs Manufacturers Association as also Boards circular. Such contracted value has to be adopted as correct assessable value. As such, we are of the view that the appellant have a good prima facie case in their favour.
4. In view of the above fact as also on account of the fact that the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.9,94,470/-, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit, without insisting upon any further deposit.
5. Stay Petition as also appeal gets disposed off in above manner.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(B.S.V. Murthy) (Archana Wadhwa)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
??
??
??
??
3