2007 (3) TMI 483 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal clarifies valuation of physician samples under CAS-4, stresses consistency and accuracy in customs cases.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD Versus MAYO (INDIA) LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AURANGABAD Versus MAYO (INDIA) LTD. - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 179 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Valuation of physician samples based on CAS-4, remand orders, challenge to Commissioner's order on quantum of adjustmentsIn the present case, the Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT, Mumbai, addressed the issue of valuation of physician samples based on CAS-4. Initially, the Tribunal remanded the matter after both sides conceded that the value of physician samples should be determined according to CAS-4. However, it was revealed that a previous order by the Tribunal had rejected the appellant's contention for valuation based on CAS-4 and instead directed valuation based on comparable goods with adjustments. The Commissioner subsequently passed orders in de novo proceedings, which were challenged by the appellant solely on the quantum of adjustments, not the fundamental principle of cost factor as the assessable value. The Tribunal noted that both sides had made incorrect concessions regarding the valuation method. As the present appeal was a continuation of earlier proceedings for quantification, the Tribunal found the order based on the new view to be a mistake on the face of records. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application and recalled the order, scheduling a fresh consideration for the dispute on the quantum of adjustments on a later date. The judgment highlights the importance of consistency in legal arguments and the need for accurate application of valuation principles in customs cases.