TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratories Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 98 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD) that the appellant is liable to pay the differential duty that arose during the material period - the assesee has to pay the interest on differential amount. As there is no dispute to the fact that the appellant was discharging the duty liability on the physician samples under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d perused the records. 4. The issue involved in this case is regarding the valuation of physician samples cleared by the appellant during the period April 2005 to September 2006. The appellant had valued the said physician samples based upon the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while Revenue is of the view that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the prorate value of the sale pack. This issue is now squarely covered against the assessee as per Larger Bench decision in the case of Cadila Laboratories Ltd. 2008 (232) ELT 245 (Tri. - LB). Accordingly, we hold that the appellant is liable to pay the differential duty that arose during the material period. Since the appellant has already paid the entire amount of the duty liability, we hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the industry. The dispute between the department and the trade had to be decided by Larger Bench, hence it can be held that the appellant had bonafide belief of discharging the duty liability based upon the valuation under the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the physician samples cleared by them. There is no dispute to the fact that the appellant was discharging th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
