Appeal No.E/301/2007, E/522, 523/2008, [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.04/2007 dt. 08.02.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli and OIA No.05/2008 dt. 28.08.2008]. Case: Pharm Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
|Case Number:||Appeal No.E/301/2007, E/522, 523/2008, [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.04/2007 dt. 08.02.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli and OIA No.05/2008 dt. 28.08.2008]|
|Party Name:||Pharm Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Shri C. Saravanan, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR)|
|Judges:||Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)|
|Judgement Date:||June 05, 2017|
|Court:||CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)|
1. The issue involved in all these appeals are whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on the quantity discount offered to dealers/distributors.
2. This Tribunal has analysed the very same issue in appellant's own case vide Final Order No.40869/2017 dated 25.05.2017 and held the issue in favour of Revenue. The Tribunal followed the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of M/s.Indica Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad 2007 (213) ELT 20 (Tri.-LB). The relevant portion of the above stated final order is reproduced as under:
6.6 However, as discussed earlier, there is no such possibility in provisions of Section 4A ibid to allow for deduction of any such similar quantity discount. As mentioned earlier, there is no scope for reduction in the assessable value deemed to be equal to declared retail price. Only reduction permitted in the said section is that of abatement which would have to be specified/allowed by notification by Central Government.
6.7 Viewed in this context, we are of the considered opinion that there is no scope for quantity discount from the assessable value that is to be worked out in terms of Section 4A ibid.
6.8 Ld. Advocate has pointed out the ratio of Tribunal's decision in the case of Vinayaka Mosquito Coil Manufacturing Co. (supra) was appealed by the department and was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, on a careful analysis of the said position, the facts are evidently different. In the case of Vinayaka Mosquito Coil Manufacturing Co. for every twelve mosquito coils sold, one coil was supplied free in the same box on which MRP was affixed. The contention of the appellant therein was that in case of free supply, there is no sale and therefore provisions of Section 4A are not attracted in view of the ratio of earlier Tribunal's decision in Surya Food and Agro Ltd. case (supra).
6.11 Notwithstanding the contention of the ld. advocate with regard to finality of the ratio of Vinayaka Mosquito Coil Manufacturing Co. decision, we, however, find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their judgements in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Himalaya Drug Company - 2015 (324) ELT 9 (SC) while holding that gel, face wash gel, of which M.R.P was required to be declared, will not however be liable to duty when supplied free along with another product bound together with sticker label. Thereby it was held that M.R.P is the sole consideration for arriving at the assessable value under Section 4A on...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL