9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be done on cost construction basis. In such scenario, the assessee cannot be faulted for following such a practice even if it is incorrect as per the subsequent directions of the Board and the judicial pronouncements. There was a reasonable cause for the appellant to mistakenly value the goods on cost construction basis instead on the basis of comparable price under Rule 4 - the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in this case and the demand for the extended period does not survive. The demand for duty within the normal period along with interest is upheld - Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/1396/2010 - A/31256/2018 - Dated:- 25-9-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case are not in dispute that the appellant manufactured physician samples and cleared them on payment of duty on cost construction basis taking 115% of the cost of production of the goods under Rule 11 of Central Excise Valuation Rules read with Rule 8 thereof. Products which were sold by the appellant were chargeable to duty with reference to the retail sale price with respect to Central Excise Rules, 1944. The short question to be considered is whether the medicines which are cleared as physician samples are the same as the goods which were sold into the market or they should be considered as a different class of products and charged to duty accordingly. If they are treated as a different class of products, they cannot be charged duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... majority members that physician samples are no different from other goods sold except for difference in quantity or packing and hence, Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules does not apply and Rule 4 applies read with Sec.4 and Sec. 4A of the Central Excise Act. 4. In view of the position now settled that the physician samples should be valued at the same rate at which similar goods are sold in the market even if the packing size is different, we cannot find any infirmity on merits in the impugned order. The demand is therefore sustainable on merits. As far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is evident from the two circulars issued by the Board, that there was sufficient confusion and even the Board was of the opinion init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
