Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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