Srushti Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore-Ii on 3 January, 2025
2. Elvina Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of
Central Excise vide Final Order No. 21164/2023 dated
31.10.2023 (CESTAT, Bangalore).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)Documents citing
Elvina Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 14 December, 2001
Group Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner Of Central ... on 25 July, 2025
6. From the record, we find that the issue raised before the
authorities below revolves around the determination of
assessable value of physician samples of pharmaceutical
products meant for free distribution. The appellant from the very
beginning resisted to adopt Rule 4 of the Central Excise
Valuation Rules, 2000 and continued to determine the
assessable value adopting cost construction method as per Rule
8 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000
as per Board Circular No. 643/34/2002-CX., dated 01.07.2002.
It is not in dispute that the appellant was discharging duty
resorting to cost construction method and the present demand
was issued to the appellant on 24.01.2008 demanding
differential duty for the period from January 2005 to December
2006. Also, it is not in dispute that the appellant has paid the
duty under various challans before adjudication which was
appropriated in the order. This Tribunal in Elvina
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., case (Supra) analysing the applicability of
Rule 4 of physician samples meant for free distribution observed
that Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 be
applicable and also held that the demand be limited for normal
period of limitation. Following the said precedent, in the present
case also we are of the view that the physician samples meant
for free distribution be subjected to assessment as per Rule 4 of
the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and extended period of
limitation cannot be invoked in demanding differential duty.
1