9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal having come to this conclusion, in our opinion ought not to have taken recourse to the 2003 circular - the Tribunal quite clearly, seeks to apply the 2003 circular which adverts to the CAS-4 methodology. Furthermore, as it appears, the Tribunal only to obtain more clarity qua the ascertainment of cost of production has remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C.M.A. No. 488 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2017 - Rajiv Shakder And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. T. Ramesh For the Respondent : Mr. A. P. Srinivas JUDGEMENT 1. This is an appeal directed against the final Judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee's case that the Tribunal ought to have applied, instead, the circular bearing No.643/34/2002-CX, dated 1.7.2002 (in short, '2002 circular'), issued by the Central Board of Customs and Central Excise (in short, 'Board') in arriving at, the cost of production of the subject goods. 6. The Revenue, quite obviously, takes a contrary view and, thus, seeks to oppose the captioned appeal. 7. Therefore, in order to adjudicate upon the instant appeal, the following broad facts are required to be noticed: 7.1. The record shows that during the period in issue, i.e., 1.8.2001 to 31.7.2002, the Assessee cleared a major part of their production on payment of duty, which was calculated, based on the market price of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the same as a component of selling and distribution expenses. The show cause notice issued to the Assessee was adjudicated, where upon, the assessee's refund claim was scaled down by the Adjudicating Authority to a sum of ₹ 38,873/-. 7.8. Aggrieved by the same, the Assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal which resulted in the Revenue approaching the Tribunal. 8. The Tribunal via the impugned Judgment and Order came to the following conclusions: (i) That the assessable value of the physician's samples would be 115% of the cost of production of the goods; (ii) The valuation of the physician's samples should be carried out in terms of CAS-4 read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. According to us, what is required to be adjudicated upon is: as to how the Adjudicating Authority is to determine the assessable value of a physician's samples, which is, off loaded in the market, albeit, free of cost by the Assessee to promote its business. 13. Importantly, it is common ground between parties (as is recorded by the Tribunal) that the, physician's samples is to be valued at 115% of the cost of production of the goods. This principle of valuation, admittedly, emanates from the 2002 circular. If this is the principle which both parties seek to adhere to, we see no reason as to why the Tribunal was required to take recourse to the 2003 circular. As co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
