Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Pondicherry vs M/S. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd on 3 June, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
		APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI

Appeal No. E/88/2003

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.7/2001 dated 10.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy)

For approval and signature:

Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)

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?

CCE, Pondicherry						Appellant

     
     Vs.


M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.			        Respondents

Appearance Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Appellant None for the Respondents CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) Date of Hearing: 03.06.2009 Date of Decision: 03.06.2009 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner who has held that the assessees are entitled to clear bulk drugs manufactured by them at a price less than the price fixed under DPCO under proviso (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Although the respondents have sought adjournment of todays hearing we find that it is not necessary to accede to the request for the reason that the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Akme Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE  2004 (169) ELT 263 holding that the ceiling price fixed under DPCO is not relevant for valuation under Section 4 and once it is found that the ceiling price is the retail price it is not relevant for the purpose of valuation under Section 4.

3. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)





(P. KARTHIKEYAN)	       (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
         Member (T)				  Vice President

Rex 



??

??

??

??




2