9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. - Appellants manufacture patent or proprietary medicines falling under Chapter 30 [of] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied free samples of their product to physicians and had declared its value for assessment on cost basis. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner took the view that as the prices of the big ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 of the Valuation Rules is the best judgment Rule for valuation. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the value determination by the Asstt. Commissioner but held that the main valuation provision Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act itself will apply. 4. On hearing Shri V.S. Nankani, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri D. Gurnani, ld. DR, we find that the matter is covered b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the transaction. Comparability, the Tribunal held, must be of the goods and not of the buyer or receipient of the goods. But any element of doubt due to disparity in the quantity of contents can certainly be neutralised by granting reasonable adjustment in that behalf. 5. The Tribunal also dealt with the contention that further adjustment is called for since the physician's sample is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one which holds that the value has to be determined under Section 4(1)(b) and under Valuation Rules 7 and 6(b). To that extent the Commissioner (Appeals) order applying Section 4(1)(a) is unsustainable though his conclusion needs no modification. It is also not the case of appellants that the Asstt. Commissioner has not made adjustments regarding the quantity of contents as between physician's sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
