Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3156

Valuation of physician samples distributed as free of cost.


Case:-EMIL PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES P. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., THANE-II
 
Citation:-2016 (334) E.L.T. 143 (Tri. Mumbai)

Brief Facts:-The period involved in all the five cases is from 1-4-2005 onwards when MRP based assessment was introduced in respect of P & P Medicaments. The issue is whether such samples should be assessed to duty as per Section 4(1) (a) or Section 4A.
 
Common issue is involved, therefore all the five appeals have been taken up together. Two appeals have been filed by the appellant M/s. Emil Pharmaceutical Ind. Pvt. Ltd. against the confirmation of the demand. Two other appeals have been filed by the Revenue against dropping of demand. Fifth appeals is Revenue’s appeal relating to M/s. Medibious Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. against dropping of demand.
 
The issue involved in all the five appeals is the valuation of physician samples manufactured by the assessees and sold to the brand name holder (other pharmaceutical companies) on principal to principal basis, who in turn distributes the same free of cost to various doctors/physician. In all the cases, respective assessees have manufactured the said goods using their own raw material, packing material, machinery etc. The period involved in all the five cases is from 1-4-2005 onwards when MRP based assessment was introduced in respect of P & P Medicaments. The issue is whether such samples should be assessed to duty as per Section 4(1) (a) or Section 4A.
 
Appellant’s Contention:- - Clearance of physician’s samples by manufacturer of P&P Medicaments to other principal manufacturers for free distribution. Since physician’s samples are not intended for sale, no legal requirement of indicating retail sale price. As held in various judgments of Tribunal, physician’s samples manufactured on principal to principal basis required to be assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and not under MRP/RSP provisions - Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
 
Respondent’s Contention:-The respondent reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
 
Reasoning Of Judgment: We find, the said issue is covered by the Tribunal judgment in the case of M/s. Gelnova Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur vide Order Nos. A/948-951/2013/EB/C-II, dated 28-10-2013 [2014 (300) E.L.T. 437 (Tribunal)].
 
The provisions of Notification issued in this regard is also worth noting:-
 
“Medicaments - Assessments on basis of retail sale price (MRP)
 
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 4A of the Central Excise Act,1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government hereby specifies the goods mentioned in column (3) of the Table below and falling under Chapter or Heading No. or sub-heading No. of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, as the goods to which the provisions of the said sub-section (2) shall apply, and allows as abatement the percentage of retail sale price mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table :-
 
 

S. No. Chapter or Heading No. or sub-heading No. Description Abatement as a percentage of retail sale price
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. 3003. 10 Patent or proprietary medicaments, other than those medicaments which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathic or Bio-chemic 35%
2. 3003. 20 Medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathic or Bio-chemic systems 35%

 
This notification shall come into force on the 8th day of January, 2005.
 
Explanation. - For the purposes of this notification, “retail sale price” means the retail price displayed by the manufacturer under the provisions of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995.”
 
We also note that Durg (Price Control) Order, 1995 in paragraph 7 specifies how the retail price of formulation is to be determined. Further paragraph 8 of the said order empowers the Government to fix the retail price of a scheduled formulation in accordance with paragraph 7. Further paragraph 9 of the said order empowers Government to fix ceiling price of scheduled formulations. Further paragraph 14 provides for carrying into effect the price fixed or revised by the Government, its display and proof thereof. Sub-paragraph (2) of the said paragraph reads as under :-
 
Carrying into effect the price fixed or revised by the Government, its display and proof thereof :
 
Every manufacturer, importer or distributor of a formulation intended for sale shall display in indelible print mark, on the label of container of the formulation and the minimum pack thereof offered for retail sale, the retail price of that formulation, notified in the Official Gazette or ordered by the Government in this behalf, with the words ‘retail price not to exceed’ preceding it, and “local taxes extra” succeeding it, in the case of Scheduled formulations.
 
Provided that in the case of a container consisting of smaller saleable packs, the retail price of such smaller pack shall also be displayed on the label of each smaller pack and such price shall not be more than the pro rata retail price of the main pack rounded off to the nearest paisa.”
 
From the above, it is clear that requirement of displaying the retail price is only for the goods intended for sale. Since, physician samples are not intended for sale, requirement to indicate the retail sale price does not exist, in the law. We also note that this Tribunal has been taking a view that physician samples manufactured on principal to principal basis are required to be assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act as is evident from the various case laws quoted by ld. Counsel for the appellant.
 
In view of the above findings, the appeal is allowed.
 
 
Decision:-Appeal allowed.
 
Comment:-  The gist of the case is that since physician samples are not intended for sale, requirement to indicate retail sale price does not exist and consequently, the provisions of MRP based valuation as contained in section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable. Hence, the valuation of physician samples is to be done under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
 
 
Prepared By: - Alakh Bhandari
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com