M/S. Hetero Drugs Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

All orders passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-II), HYDERABAD-IV.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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

M/s. HETERO DRUGS LTD UNIT-II, CIE, GANDHINAGAR, HYD, AP Appellant(s)

M/s. HETERO DRUGS LTD UNIT-II, CIE, GANDHINAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 080 Appellant(s)

M/s. Hetero Labs Limited Unit-II, Plot No. 16, CIE, Gandhinagar HYDERABAD - 500080 AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax HYDERABAD-IV POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Y. SREENIVASA REDDY, Advocate C-403, KESHAVDALE, ANAND NAGAR COLONY, KHAIRATABAD HYDERABAD - 500004 ANDHRAPRADESH For the Appellant

Mr. N.Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 27/07/2015

Date of Decision: 27/07/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21695-21697 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The dispute in all the three appeals is identical and as such all the appeals are being disposed of by a common order.

2. The appellants are manufacturing physician samples for and on behalf of the principal manufacturer of the medicaments, under a purchase order. Such samples of the medicaments are being cleared by him on payment of duty of excise on the basis of the contracted value between the appellant and the principal manufacturers.

3. Revenue by entertaining a view that appellant has to pay duty on the pro-rata basis corresponding to the value of the regular packs, raised differential duty and confirmed demand against them vide the present impugned orders.

4. After hearing both the sides, we find that no doubt in terms of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported as 2008 (232) E.L.T. 245 (Tri.-LB), the physician samples manufactured by a medicament manufacturing unit, which are meant for free distribution to the doctors, etc., are required to be assessed to duty on the assessable value arrived at on the basis of pro-rata basis of the value of the regular packs. However, where such physician samples are not being manufactured by the regular pack manufacturer, the same are required to be assessed to duty on the transaction value/contracted value in terms of the purchase orders. This issue has been the subject matter of various decisions and stands held in favour of the assessee. Reference can be made to the following decisions.

* CCE, Daman vs. Sidmak Laboratories (India) Ltd.: 2009 (242) E.L.T. 255 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Commissioner vs. Sidmak Laboratories (India) Ltd.: 2011 (270) E.L.T. A90 (S.C.) * Gelnova Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur: 2014 (300) E.L.T. 437 (Tri.-Mum.) * Omni Protech Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-I: 2011 (274) E.L.T. 377 (Tri.-Mumbai) * Mayer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (247) E.L.T. 488 (Tri.-Bang.) * Allianz Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Puducherry: 2012 (283) E.L.T. 284 (Tri.-Chennai)

4.1 By following the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant, if any.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

4