AIT-News-31

Refined or white sugar, imported upto 31st December 2010 exempted from Customs duty-Customs Tariff Notification No.8 excise exemption notification for Jammu & Kashmir modified-Central Excise Tariff Notification No.1 Air India may lower retirement age to 55 to cut cost Board of Approval to decide fate of denotification of Essar's Hazira SEZ on 11th February Revenue's comments on 1st Discussion Paper on GST-click on the link below for details SC rules service of notice on the assessee under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a pre-requisite for framing the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961-AIT-2010-43-SC HC rules assessee is entitled to benefit under Income Tax on delayed payment of PF if the payment is made before the return is filed-AIT-2010-42-HC Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amount received by the foreign company from the Government of Tamil Nadu under the contract is essentially in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12.4 of DTAA and cannot be regarded as consideration for the sale of designs and drawings-AIT-2010-38-AAR Authority for Advance Ruling rules payment received by the applicant from VARs (“third party re-sellers”) on account of supplies of software products to the end-customers (from whom the licence fee is collected and appropriated by VAR) does not result in income in the nature of royalty to the applicant and moreover payments received by the applicant cannot be taxed as business profits in India in the absence of permanent establishment as envisaged by Article 7 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty-AIT-2010- 36-AAR lending or borrowing money between two associated enterprises comes within the ambit of international transaction and whether the same is at arms length price has to be considered-The question of rate of interest on the borrowing loan is an integral part of arms length price redetermination in this context-AIT-2010-37-ITAT Export and Import of Currency-RBI Circular No.30 HC rules a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable for questioning reopening of the assessment in a case such as this where the preconditions for the exercise of the power have not been fulfilled-recourse to the power under Section 147 cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion, there being no failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment-AIT-2010-35-HC Definitive Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Carbon Black used in rubber applications falling under sub heading 2803 00 10, originating in, or exported from, Australia, China PR, Russia and Thailand-Customs Tariff Notification No.6 Tariff Value for import of Brass scrap is 3597 and for poppy seeds 4392-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Adjustment of “Advance Tax in respect of Fringe Benefits” for Assessment Year 2010-11 against “Advance Tax”-Income Tax Circular No.2 CBDT clarifies it is the choice of the assessee whether to file an objection before the Dispute Resolution panel against the draft assessment order or not to exercise this option and file an appeal later before CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order passed by the AO

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 )