CCE Vs. SHASUN CHEMICALS AND DRUGS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'bulk drugs' listed in the Schedule to the Drug (Price Control) Order [DPCO, for short] issued by the Drug Control Authority. During the periods of dispute, they sold their bulk drugs at a price lesser than the maximum price fixed by DPCO. The department took the view that they should have adopted the DPCO price as assessable value. Accordingly, SCNs were issued demanding differential duty from the respondents. In respect of the respondents' manufacturing units at Cuddalore and Pondicherry, the jurisdictional Commissioners of Central Excise dropped the demand of duty, respectively, for the periods April' 94 to February' 99 and May -June 2000 and November' 93 to September' 98. In respect of the Pondicherry unit, for another period (October to December 1998 and May -June 2000), the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty as proposed in the relevant SCNs and imposed a penalty on the assessee, but his orders were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in appeals filed by the assessee. Hence the present appeals of the department.

(2.) THE short question arising for consideration in these appeals is whether the maximum price fixed in DPCO was liable to be adopted as the basis of assessable value of bulk drugs. According to the respondents, they were at liberty to sell their products at lower prices than those fixed in DPCO and the actual price would be the normal price under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act for the purpose of determination of assessable value. The appellant, however, would say that the price fixed in DPCO being a price statutorily fixed should be adopted as normal price for the goods under Section 4. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we find that this issue is already covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the cases of Acme Pharmaceuticals v. Commissioner and IPCA Laboratories v. Commissioner , wherein it was held that the prices fixed in a DPCO was the maximum retail price for the goods and the manufacturer could sell their goods at any price below such maximum price and further that such lower price would be a normal price under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act for the purpose of determination of assessable value. In these appeals, the appellant has relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Collector

(3.) IN view of the Larger Bench decision, we sustain the impugned order and dismiss these appeals.