2006 (7) TMI 30

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....     Penalty Rs. 1,02,18,619/- Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Date of SCN 4-6-2004 29-4-2004 7-5-2004  2.Physician samples are packed separately and valued by the Appellants as provided under Rule 11 read with Rule 8 of the C. Ex. Valuation Rules, 2000 i.e. 115% (110% w.e.f. 6-8-2003) of the cost of production in terms of CBEC Circular dt. 1-7-2002 and duty was discharged accordingly on such physician samples cleared. As per the notices issued it was alleged that the valuation as per circular dt. 1-7-2002 was not correct and valuation was to be arrived under Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. Since Rule 4 preceded Rule 8, valuation of such samples was required to be done under Rule 11 read with Rule 4 and also the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y the ld. Advocates for the Appellants is well founded to support the contention that the valuation was to be done as provided for by circular dt. 1-7-2002 till the date it was rescinded and the department cannot recipe from that position and change its view and apply the new circular for the retrospective period. Therefore demands in contravention of the circular dt. 1-7-2002 and consequent penalties cannot be upheld. (b)        Rule 4 of the valuation Rule snow being applied by Revenue is pari materia erstwhile Rule 4 of Valuation Rules, 1975, This Rules reads as follows, "The value of the excisable goods shall be based on the value of such goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any time at any other ti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 05 (183) E.L.T. 471 have held that Rule 4 of 1975 is not applicable for valuation of physician sample since Rule 4 is pari materia to Rule 4 of Valuation Rules, 2000 no reasons could be found by us to take a different view. (d)        The case law relied upon by the ld. Adjudicator relate to the period when Rule 6(b)(i) of Valuation Rules, 1975 could be invoked. This Rule on a perusal provided for pro-rata application and the provisions of this Rule are appear to be consciously dropped vide Valuation Rules, 2000 w.e.f. 1-7-2000. Therefore the findings of the adjudicator are based on the law that is not applicable in view of the change in Rules. (e)        The plea the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X