https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124406 Penalty was held unjustified where the dispute concerned only valuation of physician samples, the assessee had adopted a valuation method supported by then-existing judicial views, and later revised the method after the dispute was resolved in line with the applicable rule. Payment of duty with interest after resolution, coupled with the absence of any deliberate intent to evade duty, meant that suppression or evasion could not be established. A coordinate Bench ruling on identical facts was followed, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Sep 2017 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124406 Penalty was held unjustified where the dispute concerned only valuation of physician samples, the assessee had adopted a valuation method supported by then-existing judicial views, and later revised the method after the dispute was resolved in line with the applicable rule. Payment of duty with interest after resolution, coupled with the absence of any deliberate intent to evade duty, meant that suppression or evasion could not be established. A coordinate Bench ruling on identical facts was followed, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124406