AIT-News-31

Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court transferred to Kerala High Court SV Gangapurwala appointed as Judge of Bombay High Court Akhilesh Chandra, Gopal Prasad andi Mungeshwar Sahoo appointed as Judges of Patna High Court BV Pinto, Bijoor Manohar, K.Govindarajulu and HS Kempanna appointed as Judges of the Karnataka High Court Half a dozen Officers of Goa Customs & CHA apply for anticipatory bail fearing arrest by CBI in duty evasion case of Adani Service Tax Notification No. 17/2010 which exempts the taxable service providing packaged or canned software, intended for single use and packed accordingly amended-Service Tax Notification No.18 Procurement, Import and Export of Prohibited and Restricted Goods by SEZ Units-SEZ Instruction No. 47 Tractors are chargeable to tractor cess in terms of the Tractor Cess Rules, 1992 read with the IDRA Act, 1951-Central Excise Circular No. 916 Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amounts received/receivable by Technopromexport from NTPC under contract for Offshore supply of all plant and equipment including mandatory spares are not liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and DTAA between India and Russia-AIT-2010-79-AAR whether Cess levied under section 5 of Textile Committees Act, 1963 is includable as a component of CVD-AIT-2010-78-HC Export warehousing –Extension of facility at Gautam Budh Nagar in UP and Nagpur in Maharashtra-Central Excise Circular No. 917 Implementation of the provisions of COTP Act, 2003 and The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008- Empowering the Customs & Central Excise Officers-Central Excise Circular No. 918 Toilet linen and kitchen linen, of terry toweling or similar terry fabric, of cotton and of other textile materials added in Focus Product Scheme for exports made after 1st Jan 2010-DGFT PN 46 TDS on payment of interest on time deposits under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act by banks following Core-Branch Banking Solutions software-Income Tax Circular No.3 Tariff value for import of Brass scrap is 3732 and for poppy seeds 4640-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.19 Duty Credit Scrips can also be used / debited towards payment of Customs Duties in case of EO defaults under Authorizations issued under Chapters 4 and 5 of the Policy-DGFT Notification No.32 SC Ruling-the nature of roll over premium charge incurred by the assessee as also the scope and applicability of Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of such charges-we find no merit in the contention of the assessee that roll over charges have nothing to do with the fluctuation in the rate of exchange-AIT-2010-75-SC Pre-authentication of excise invoices dispensed with Excise duty on Goggles and OTS cans hiked to 10 per cent av gas and mosquito net impregnated with insecticides subjected to 4 per cent excise Outright exemption from additional duty of customs (of 4%) leviable under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to goods imported in a pre-packaged form and intended for retail sale Benefit of allowing Cenvat credit to be reversed on proportionate basis (when common inputs are used for the manufacture of dutiable and exempt products) extended retrospectively Bad News for flat bookers-unless the entire consideration for the property is paid after the completion of construction (i.e. after issuance of completion certificate by the competent authority), the activity of construction would be deemed to be a taxable service provided by the builder/promoter/developer to the prospective buyer and the service tax would be charged accordingly Bad News for ladies-sanitary napkins & kids diapers subjected to 10 per cent excise excise duty @ 4% imposed on specified IT products like microprocessor other than motherboards, floppy disc drives, CD-Rom drive etc when these items are meant for external use with a computer or laptop as a plug-in device Packaged software or canned software exempted from excise excise duty on Cartons, boxes and cases, of corrugated paper or paperboard manufactured by Standalone manufacturers lowered from 8% to 4% all ceramic tiles, whether manufactured by using electricity for firing the kiln or not, will attract a single excise duty rate of 10% process of drawing or redrawing of aluminium tubes and pipes as amounting to " manufacture" Excise duty on replaceable kits of all domestic water filters except those operating on RO technology reduced from 8% to 4% Excise duty exemption on parts, components and accessories of mobile handsets including cellular phones extended to parts of two accessories namely, battery chargers and hands-free headphones of these devices.

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Valuation of Physician Samples under Rule 4: HC

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. Dismissing the Petition filed by Indian Drugs Manufacturers Association; High Court has upheld the validity of CBEC Circular No.813 dated 25^th April 2005 and has ruled that the valuation of physicians samples cleared for free distribution be determined under Rule 11 read with Rule 4 of Central Excise valuation (determination of Price of excisable Goods) Rules,2000 and such a valuation would be reasonable and consistent with the principles and the general provisions of the Rules and the Act.

T H E R U L I NG:

Rule 5,6,7,9 & 10 of 2000 Rules are not applicable to the physicians free samples because rule 5,6,7,9 & 10 apply to cases where the goods are sold whereas physicians samples are not sold.Therefore, the question is, which of the remaining Rule 4, 8 & 11 of the 2000 Rules would be applicable for the valuation of physicians free samples.
The physicians samples cannot be valued under Rule 8, because physicians samples are not cleared for use and consumption in the production or manufacture of other articles. Rule 8 applies to cases, where the goods are not sold but are cleared exclusively for use and consumption in the production or manufacture of other articles. Admittedly, the physicians samples are cleared for free distribution to the medical practitioners and are not cleared for use and consumption in the production or manufacture of other articles and, therefore, the method of valuation provided under Rule 8 cannot be applied for the valuation of physicians free samples. Thus, the remaining rules, namely rule 4 and rule 11 are the only two rules that can be applied for the valuation of physicians free samples.
Rule 4 is a general rule and provides that the valuation of excisable goods that are not sold and delivered at the time and place of removal shall be based on the value of such goods sold and delivered at any other time nearest to the time of the removal of goods under assessment. The word ‘such goods’ in Rule 4 clearly means that the goods in question must be similar or identical to and have same quality or character to the goods sold and delivered. In other words, what Rule 4 provides is that in all cases where the goods are not sold and delivered at the time and place of removal, its valuation is to be made by taking the value of such goods sold and delivered at the time nearest to the time and place of removal of the goods in question.
Rule 4 squarely applies to the clearances of physicians free samples, because, physicians samples are not clearances by way of sale and delivery at the time and place of removal and such goods meaning thereby goods similar or identical to physicians samples are also sold and delivered at the time and place of removal. By the very nature, the physicians samples have to be strictly identical to the goods which are cleared on sale in the wholesale trade. In fact, by distributing physicians samples freely, the assessee represents to the physicians that the product same physical and chemical properties, composition, potency, etc. Thus, the physicians samples cleared for free distribution are liable to be valued under Rule 4 on the basis of the value of such goods sold and delivered at any other time nearest to the time and place or removal of the physicians samples.
The argument that Rule 4 applies only to goods sold but not delivered to the buyer at the time and place of removal cannot be accepted because, Rule 4 is a general rule and does not contain any words which warrant such restricted meaning. The fact that Rule 4 permits adjustments in the value on account of the difference in the dates of delivery of such goods, if any, it cannot be inferred that Rule 4 is restricted to goods sold but not delivered at the time and place of removal. By use of the words "if necessary" in Rule 4, it is made clear that the adjustments shall be permitted wherever necessary. In other words, Rule 4 would also cover cases where such adjustment is not necessary. To put it simply, there is nothing in Rule 4 to suggest that it applies only to goods sold but not delivered at the time and place of removal.
The fact that rule similar to Rule 6 (b)(i) of 1975 Rules is not to be seen in 2000 Rules would not preclude the revenue from valuing the physicians samples under Rule 4 especially when rule 4 of the 2000 Rules is similar to Rule 4 of 1975 Rules. Therefore, valuation of physicians samples under Rule 4 of 2000 Rules would be reasonable and in consonance with the principles consistently followed in the last three decades.
The contention that Rule 8 is the only rule which deals with the instances where the goods are not sold and,therefore, Rule 11 with the spirit of Rule 8 have to be applied to the physicians samples cannot be accepted because Rule 8 applies to cases where the goods are not sold but are consumed captively in the manufacture of other articles. In the cases of physicians samples, the clearances are not for captive consumption and moreover, goods similar or identical to physicians samples are sold in the market. Therefore, the question of applying the spirit of Rule 8 does not arise at all.
The fact that the Board had issued a Circular No.643 dated 1/7/2002 directing that the physicians samples be valued under Rule 8 does not mean that the revenue cannot withdraw that circular even if it is found to be was erroneous and issue a circular which is in consonance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
The argument of the petitioners that the physicians samples are distinct from the goods sold in the market is without any merit. The physicians free samples must be similar or identical to the goods that are sold in the wholesale trade. If the physicians samples are not similar or identical to the goods that are sold in the wholesale trade, then the consequences will be disastrous, because, the physicians prescribe medicines based on the free samples supplied by the assessee. The fact that the physicians samples may be distributed in a different pack or in a different bottle would not make the physicians samples different from the goods sold in the open market. The difference in the size or quantity may entitle the assessee to some adjustment in the value, however, that would not make the physicians samples to be distinct from the goods sold in the open market. In other words, irrespective of the fact that the physicians samples are distributed in a pack different from the pack that is sold in the market, the valuation of the physicians free samples have to be determined under Rule 4 by applying the valuation of such goods sold in the open market.
Rule 4 is the only general rule and,therefore, it is just and proper to hold that the valuation of physicians samples be determined under Rule 11 read with Rule 4 and such a valuation would be reasonable and consistent with the principles and the general provisions of the Rules and the Act. The contention that the physicians samples must be valued under Rule 11 read with Rule 8 cannot be accepted because, Rule 8 applies to cases where the goods are not sold but are captively consumed whereas, goods similar to physicians samples are in fact sold in the open market and in fact physicians samples are not cleared for captive consumption. Hence the valuation of physicians samples cannot be determined under Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of the 2000 Rules.
( Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2006-190-HC )