Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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