Valuation of physician samples cleared free of cost sustained under Rule 4 read with Rule 11; duty demand upheld.

Physician samples cleared free of cost, having no transaction value and no sale at the time of removal, could not be valued under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules applied as the general valuation provision for such unsold goods, and Rule 11 could support a reasonable method consistent with the rules. Because the samples were not captively consumed, Rule 8 did not apply, and Section 4A was inapplicable since the goods were not MRP-based. Following the settled approach on physician samples, the valuation under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 was sustained and the duty demand upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether physician samples cleared free of cost are to be valued under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, and whether the duty demand on such samples was sustainable.

Analysis: Physician samples were not sold and had no transaction value, so valuation could not be made under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The goods were identical in material characteristics to the medicines sold in the market, save for packing and quantity variations, making comparable sale value the appropriate benchmark. Rule 4, being the general valuation rule for goods not sold at the time and place of removal, was held applicable, and where necessary its application could be supported by Rule 11 as a reasonable method consistent with the rules. Rule 8 was inapplicable because the samples were not captively consumed in the manufacture of other articles. Section 4A was also inapplicable because the samples were not MRP-based goods. The settled approach from the earlier decision concerning physician samples was followed.

Conclusion: The demand on clearance of physician samples was upheld and the valuation under Rule 4 read with Rule 11 was sustained.

---