9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Harish/ Deputy Commissioner (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER Per: V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 255/2008 dated 29/08/2008. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Digital Panel Meters, Energy Meters etc falling under Chapter 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. During the period under dispute i.e. 2002-03 to June 2006, the appellant cleared their m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the learned counsel that the central excise duty on goods which are cleared to their own show-room is required to be done on the basis of Rule 8 as per CBEC circular dated 01.07.2002 (Question No. 13). It is his submission that the duty has been paid accordingly and the same finds approval in the Tribunal decision Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Aquamall Water Solutions Ltd. - 2008 (223) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble High Court and it has been decided that the duty payable on goods cleared as samples are required to be done in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, we find that the CBEC vide its clarification dated 01.07.2002 had clarified in question 13 that the duty is to be paid in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. However the same ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... give information regarding goods cleared for replacement by adoption of value as per Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. We are in agreement with such finding in the impugned order.
7. In the result, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The same is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.
(Order Dictated in Open Court on 08/02/2018) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
