9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.R. for the respondent ORDER Per Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against the order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur in Appeal No.214/2008. The period in dispute is from April 2006 to March 2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Lens Care Solution falling under Tariff He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant started paying excise duty on the sample bottles under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules i.e. cost of production plus 10% under protest. The objection raised by the Department culminated into the issuance of periodical show cause notices. The impugned notices alleged that that the bottles of lens care solution cleared by the appellant were required to be valued based on the price of comparable go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrect assessable or the value has to be raised, by adopting the value of the full commercial bottle of 120 ml. We note that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Surat-II reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 42 (Tri.- Mumbai) = 2005 TIOL 123 CESTAT - MUM and it was held that inasmuch as the smaller p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Act, 1944. The fact that physician samples were further given free of cost by the distributors as no price was charged by the distributors, the case cannot be held to be not covered by the provisions of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act. The said argument of the Revenue would be fallacious and wrong reason. The transaction is between the assessee and their distributors at the price charged by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
