Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Cadila Pharmaceuticals vs C.C.E., Ahmedabad Ii on 30 January, 2017

M/S Overseas Health Care (P) Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 9 October, 2017

We also note the fact that in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No. A/61298-61299/2017-EX[DB] dt. 13.07.2017, this Tribunal held that the demand of duty is payable by the appellant alongwith interest but no penalty is imposable on the appellant in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-II (supra) as the issue of valuation was decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Customs Central Excise And Service Tax vs Z Y G Pharma Pvt. Ltd. on 19 June, 2017

); CCE Vs. Punjab Laminates Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2006 (202) ELT 578 (SC); and, Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. CCE order dated 10/11/2016 passed by the Gujarat High Court, at Ahemdabad and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that extended period of five years and mandatory equal penalty are not attracted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R K Dubey - Full Document

Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Commissioner Ce & St(Ltu) Mumbai on 26 September, 2023

In the context of further placement of pharmaceuticals within the ambit of 'retail sale price (RSP)' assessment after January 2005, the correctness of the valuation preference for price at the nearest ascertainable time of removal was referred to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal and, in Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [2008 (232) ELT 245 (Tri-LB)], it was held that '30. The fact that medicines/medicaments are specified goods within the meaning of Section 4A of the Act since January, 2005, does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Bombay High Court but this would hardly make any difference, for, the E/86175/2013 6 MRP is to be treated as value of the goods i.e. deemed value in place of the transaction value under Section 4(1)(a) and it does not take the goods out of the pale of Rule 4. Besides, it is to be kept in mind that the Bombay High Court was seized of a legal issue in the context of challenge to the validity of a circular issued on 25-4-2005, that is, in the aftermath of the notification under Section 4A(1).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aurolab vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 18 December, 2017

"6.?As regards the physician samples manufactured by some of the appellants on their own behalf and distributed free of cost, we find that the issue is no more open for arguments inasmuch as the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 245 has held that valuation of such physician samples is required to be made on the basis of pro rata value of the regular pack of the comparable goods in terms of the provisions of Rule 4.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1