9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 25/04/2005 directed that the assessment should be under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. Even though the appellant has submitted the monthly Returns from time to time indicating clearance of the said goods adopting Cost Construction Method, but no objection was raised by the Department during the course of audit or during the visit of the preventive officers to their factory. Under these circumstances, allegation of suppression or mis-declaration of facts by the Revenue cannot be sustained. A similar view has been expressed by this Tribunal in Bora Pharma Pvt. Ltd. case [ 2017 (11) TMI 1509 - CESTAT MUMBAI] wherein it is observed that in the absence of any evidence to support the allegation of suppression, misrepresentation, extend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the appellant submits that in accordance with Circular as was prevailing earlier, the appellant determined the assessable value of the physician samples supplied free under Section 4(1) (b) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 adopting Cost Construction Method. They have been filing returns periodically with the Department and clearing the goods on payment of duty. He submits that no fact was ever suppressed from the Department nor mis-declared in arriving at the assessable value of the physician samples supplied free. Hence, inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held made applicable. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that neither before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) nor before this Tribunal, the appellants have disputed the method of valuation of physician samples supplied free of cost. However, they have seriously contested confirmation of demand invoking of extended period of limitation. The appellant during the said period, cleared the goods on payment of duty by determining its assessable value applying Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 by adopting Cost Construction Method as was clarified by the CBEC in its Circular dated 01/07/2002. The later Circular dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
