Section 4 valuation prevails where assessable value exists; valuation rules should not replace it, and limitation may bar demand.

Where excisable goods are cleared on payment of duty and an assessable value is already available under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that value should not be displaced by resorting to Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2002. The stated principle is that valuation rules are not to be used to substitute a different assessable value when Section 4 applies. The text also notes that, on the recorded facts, the demand appeared to be time-barred, so the limitation objection supported the assessee. The document further records that the assessee had a strong prima facie case and obtained interim relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether physician's samples cleared on payment of duty were liable to be valued under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2002; and whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The goods were not free physician's samples but were cleared on payment of duty. Where an assessable value is available under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there is no justification to discard that value and adopt the valuation rules to arrive at a different assessable value. On the facts recorded, the demand also appeared to be time-barred.

Conclusion: The valuation adopted by the appellant under Section 4 was accepted at the interim stage and the limitation objection was also found to support the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was held to have a strong prima facie case and interim relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are cleared on payment of duty and an assessable value is available under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, resort to the valuation rules to substitute a different assessable value is unwarranted.

---