Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd on 7 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/883/03 & E/CO/5/04
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.20/2002 dated 23.9.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTRANJAN SATAPATHY, 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? :
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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai
Appellant/s
Versus
Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri V.V.Hariharan, JCDR Shri R.Raghavan, Advocate Shri M.Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 7.7.2009 Date of decision : 7.7.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in this appeal is as to whether sale price lesser than the DPCO fixed by the government, adopted by the assessees herein is legally permissible. According to the Revenue, adoption of lesser sale price has resulted in payment of lesser Excise Duty and, therefore, the assessees are liable to pay duty and are also liable to penalty.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in IPCA Laboratories Vs CCE Indore, 2004 (170) ELT 40 (Tri.-LB) holding that a manufacturer of drugs can price his goods at any price below the maximum retail price specified in the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995. In the case of Acme Pharmaceuticals Vs CCE Ahmedabad, 2004 (169) ELT 263 (Tri.-LB), another Larger Bench has also come to the same conclusion. The decisions of the Larger Bench have been followed in CCE Pondicherry Vs Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., 2006 (206) ELT 1020 (Tri.-Chennai).
3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we hold that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and, accordingly, we uphold the same. Since the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the cross-objection is also dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
2