2009 (6) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - Duty demand of Rs. 6,45,447/- with interest as applicable has been confirmed and the penalty equal to the duty amount has been imposed on the appellant on the ground that they had cleared physicians samples on payment of duty in terms of provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ear 2005. Therefore, he submitted that extended period could not have been invoked since the appellants followed the law as they understood as different interpretations were possible. Therefore, intention to evade duty cannot be said to be existing in this case. Learned DR reiterated the arguments advanced in the impugned order. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the officers of the department, there is no such law laid down by the Hon'ble Court that the circular issued by the Board is binding on the assessees as well as on the Tribunal. Therefore, it cannot be said since Board issued a circular the assessee is not entitled to entertain an opinion which is different from the circular issued. Further the very fact that Board's circular issued in 2002 was m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X