https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118806 Physician samples had to be valued under the applicable valuation regime for the relevant period, using the prescribed method for that period. For the pre-2000 period, valuation on a comparable trade-pack basis was upheld, while cost construction was not accepted; the substantive demand for that period survived. For the post-2000 period, valuation at 115% of cost of production in line with the departmental circular was accepted and the contrary computation was rejected. The demand for the earlier period was not time-barred because the valuation method and price lists had been disclosed, and penalty was unwarranted where the dispute was a bona fide valuation controversy. The prior unappealed remand direction also attained finality. en-us Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:11:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118806 Physician samples had to be valued under the applicable valuation regime for the relevant period, using the prescribed method for that period. For the pre-2000 period, valuation on a comparable trade-pack basis was upheld, while cost construction was not accepted; the substantive demand for that period survived. For the post-2000 period, valuation at 115% of cost of production in line with the departmental circular was accepted and the contrary computation was rejected. The demand for the earlier period was not time-barred because the valuation method and price lists had been disclosed, and penalty was unwarranted where the dispute was a bona fide valuation controversy. The prior unappealed remand direction also attained finality. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118806