ORDER

Civil Appeals Nos. 1697, 2586 and 2587 of 2006

1. It is evident from the impugned orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “the Tribunal”) that while arriving at the conclusion that physician's samples have to be valued on pro rata basis, the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in CCE v. Trinity Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Admittedly, the said decision of the Tribunal has not been put in issue by the Revenue. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain the appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.

2. At this juncture, Mr R.P. Bhatt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that since a similar question of law is likely to arise in a large number of cases, Revenue's viewpoint on the issue may not be foreclosed merely because some of the orders passed by the Tribunal have not been challenged. Although, being a tax matter, the doctrine of promissory estoppel as such may not be applicable and the Revenue can be permitted to take a position different from its earlier stand provided it is able to demonstrate the distinguishing features of the case but bearing in mind the fact that no such attempt was made before the Tribunal which has merely relied on its earlier decisions, which have attained finality, we refrain from making any observation on the plea of the learned Senior Counsel.

Civil Appeal No. D 20319 of 2006

3. Delay condoned. It is evident from the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short “the Tribunal”) in Appeal No. E/357/02 that while holding that samples have to be valued on pro rata basis, the Tribunal has relied on its earlier decision in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries. v. CCE. Admittedly, the said decision of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the Revenue and as such, has attained finality. In that view of the matter, we decline to entertain the appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.