9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal against that part of the order which relies upon the wrong circular to arrive at the conclusion made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Since both the appeals arise out of the same order they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The issue in this case is regarding the valuation of the Physician s samples manufactured and cleared by the appellant from their factory. The period involved is from March to September 2004. The valuation adopted by the appellant for discharge of the duty is 115% of the cost of production of the said goods as provided under rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. It is the Revenue s case that the valuation should be done as per rule 4 of the same rules which provide for the application of pro rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect from the date of earlier circular. It is his submission that the said circular would apply in this case as the adjudication was done by the authority after the circular dated 25-4-2005 has come into force and there is no reason for interference in the order-in-appeal. It is his submission that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. [2006 (202) E.L.T. 182 (Tri.- LB)] would apply in this case. As regards the revenues appeal it is his submission that while upholding the order-in-original the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not quoted the correct CBEC circular hence submits that their appeal may be allowed by modifying the said impugned order. 5. Considered the submissions made at l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue should be determined under Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. 7. It can be noticed that the second clarification given by the CBEC was subsequent to the clearances made by the appellant in this case. If that be so, to our mind appellant cannot be faulted for the method used by him for valuation of the physician s samples cleared by him. The appellant has correctly applied the provisions of the Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 while clearing the samples. It is seen from records that the show cause notice in this case was issued to the appellant on 3-2-2005 i.e. when the CBEC circular dated 1-7-2002 was in force and was binding on the revenue authorities. Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 483/06 [2006 (203) E.L.T. 102 (T)] in an identical issue for the earlier period has held as under : (b) A force is found in the submission that circular dated 1-7-02 will prevail till the date of its substitution by circular dt. 25-4-05 superceding it as the period involved in all these appeals is up to April 2003. The reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Simplex Casting Ltd., 2003 (155) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.), CCE v Maruti Foam (P) Ltd., 2004 (164) E.L.T. 394 (S.C.) especially para 7 thereof and Collector of CCE v. Kores (India) Ltd. 1997 (89) 442 (S.C.) and Bajaj Auto Ltd. 1996 (88) E.L.T. 355 (LB) by the ld. Advocates for the appellants is well founded to support the contention that the valuation was to be done as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
