Commissioners Of Central Excise vs Yash Laboratories
- CitationAppeal No. : E/1218/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a manufacturer clears physician samples to brand name owners who are not related parties, and those samples are sold in wholesale, duty is chargeable on the transaction value; the Tribunal will not interfere with an appellate order that so holds where the revenue's own verification confirms that the samples were cleared to unrelated brand name owners during the period in question.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIA-AKP/23/DMN/VALSAD/2010-2011dt 28.4.2010 Passed by Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-DAMAN ]
Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-DAMAN - Appellant(s)
Vs
Yash Laboratories - Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri W Christian, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 23/7/2015
ORDER No. A/11124 / 2015 dtd 23/7/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
Revenue filed this appeal against Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed with consequential relief.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on the ground that the physician samples were sold to the brand name owners. It has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, Daman Vs. Sidmak Laboratories (I) Ltd [2009(242)ELT.255(Tri. Ahmd)], which was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. It has been held that the Physician Samples were sold in wholesale; duty has to be charged on the transaction value. In earlier occasion, this Bench directed the Learned Authorised Representative to verify as to whether physician samples are sold. Today, the Learned Authorised Representative placed before the Bench a copy of the letter dt. 17.7.2015 of the Asstt. Commissioner (Review), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Valsad. In the said letter, it is stated that on the basis of division Valsad, Asstt. Commissioners report dtd 8.7.2015 and 16.7.2015 that the physician samples during the relevant period (period covered under show cause notice dated 29.4.2009 i.e., May 2005 to November 2006) were cleared to the brand name owners and the brand name owners were not related parties of the respondents.
3. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal file by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Swami ??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free