9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the appellants free of cost, and in such circumstances Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules would be applicable. Time limitation - penalty - Held that: - in the absence of any evidence to support the allegation of suppression, misrepresentation, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - penalty under Section 11AC also set aside. The demand of duty and interest for normal period uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r no.813/10/2005-CX dated 25.04.2005 wherein it was directed that the assessment should be under Rule 4 of Valuation Rules, 2000. He pointed out that the said circular was challenged in Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court by the Indian Drug Manufacturers Association. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the circular issued by the Board dated 25.04.2005. Consequently, demand show-cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntury Pharmacueticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is seen that in the said case Tribunal had upheld assessment under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules and not under rule 8. Similarly, in the case of Zyg Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the appellants it is seen that the facts are different insofar as the appellants in that case were not distributing samples free of cost themselve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice is beyond the normal period of limitation. On perusal of the show-cause notice shows that the extended period of limitation has been invoked alleging that the appellants failed to bring to the notice of the revenue that they were paying duty on cost construction method. It is seen that prior to issue of CBEC circular no.813/10/2005-CX dated 25.04.2005, the revenue was of the view that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
