TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled against the appellant by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad [2008 (9) TMI 98 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD], where it was held that the appropriate rule governing the valuation of physician’s samples would continue to be Rule 4. Time limitation - Held that: - there was confusion in the field by various decisions of the Tribunal and ultimately the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for non compliance with the stay order passed by him directing the applicant-appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 13 lakhs out of the total duty of ₹ 25,93,505/- confirmed against them. The said demand stands confirmed in respect of physician samples cleared by the applicant on payment of duty by adopting the assessable value as 110% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Learned advocate also draws our attention to the recent decisions in the case of Marsha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Vadodara reported in 2009 (248) ELT 687 (Tri.-Ahmd.) held subsequently in the case of Alembic Ltd. Vs. CCE Vadodara order No.A/594/WZB/AHD/10 S/521/WZB/AHD/10 dated 31.05.10 in support of his plea that as there was confusion in the field by various decisions of the Tribunal and ulti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
