Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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