Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Commissioner Ce & St(Ltu) Mumbai on 26 September, 2023 cites

Indian Drugs Manufacturers ... vs Union Of India on 22 December, 2011

leading to writ proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Indian Drugs Manufacturing Association v. Union of India [2008 (222) ELT 22 (Bom)] and the competency of the tax authorities to revise its stand in accordance with law was upheld and the correctness of lack of option for recourse to rule 8 of Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 approved thereby directing recourse to rule 4 therein which prescribed adoption of the 'price of goods sold for delivery at time nearest to the time of removal of the goods under assessment' for determination of duty liability.
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 6 - R M Savant - Full Document

Passed By: Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd on 20 June, 2013

In Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd [2015 (326) ELT 3 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that '10. As mentioned above, the assessee had put up the defence that since physician samples were not meant for sale by distributors but were to be given free of cost to the physicians, the assessee had charged lesser price. This statement of the assessee had not been doubted. The only reason in the show cause notice given was that since the physician samples were given free of cost by the distributors and no price was charged, the case was not covered by the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. This is clearly fallacious and wrong reason. The transaction in question was between the assessee and the distributors. Between them, E/86175/2013 7 admittedly, price was charged by the assessee from the distributors. What ultimately distributors did with these goods is extraneous and could not be the relevant consideration to determine the valuation of excisable goods. When we find that price was charged by the assessee from the distributors, the show cause notice is clearly founded on a wrong reason. The case would squarely be covered under the provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. In view thereof, the Central Excise Rules would not apply in the instant case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M/S Softesule Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 30 September, 2014

In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that notwithstanding the non-availability of the normal sale price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, by reason of the goods being specified under Section 4A(1) making the retail sale price i.e. MRP as its deemed value, the appropriate rule governing the valuation of physician's samples would continue to be Rule 4 and the decision of the Larger Bench in Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd.'s case (supra) mutatis mutandis continues to be good law. The reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant/assessee.'
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Cadila Pharmaceuticals vs C.C.E., Ahmedabad Ii on 30 January, 2017

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 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1