MADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. vs. COMMNR OF CENTRAL EXCISE&CUSTOMS, DAMAN

C.A. No.-003626-003626 - 2005Supreme Court14 January 201130 pages
For Petitioner: K J JOHN AND COFor Respondent: B. KRISHNA PRASAD
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that physician samples are excisable goods, and their value for excise duty purposes should be determined on a pro-rata basis. The Court distinguished cases where goods were not marketable due to inherent qualities from those prohibited from sale by statute.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., challenged the excise duty assessment on physician samples. The core dispute was whether these samples, statutorily prohibited from sale, were excisable goods and how they should be valued.

What were the issues?

The key issues were whether physician samples, prohibited from sale, qualify as excisable goods and the appropriate method for valuing them for excise duty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 3,Section 18,Section 27(d),Section 27(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(17)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3626 OF 2005 Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ……….. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman …………..Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1354-1355 OF 2010 Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ………….. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Gujarat …………..Respondent

J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, J. 1) A group of three appeals is filed by the appellant – Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., under Section 35 L (b) of the Central Excise 1

Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In Civil Appeal No.3626 of 2005, the appellant calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) (in short, “The Tribunal”) in Appeal No. E/549 to E 551/2003-Mum, dated 3.12.2004. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Valsad dated 30.12.2002. In this appeal, the appellant has raised the following question of law for our consideration and decision:- “Whether Physician samples manufacture

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 3

All 288 judgments and leading authorities on Section 3 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →