<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (11) TMI 254 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218239</link>
    <description>Physician samples actually sold to principals under contractual arrangements are assessable on the declared transaction value under Section 4 where that value is not rejected and the sale arrangements are undisputed; pro rata valuation based on the sale-pack MRP is not justified. Disclosure in monthly returns of the samples, quantities, assessable value and duty payable, where accepted without objection, does not require separate disclosure of the valuation method. Such disclosure negates suppression or mis-declaration of material facts, preventing invocation of the extended limitation period. The demand was therefore set aside on both valuation and limitation grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 254 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218239</link>
      <description>Physician samples actually sold to principals under contractual arrangements are assessable on the declared transaction value under Section 4 where that value is not rejected and the sale arrangements are undisputed; pro rata valuation based on the sale-pack MRP is not justified. Disclosure in monthly returns of the samples, quantities, assessable value and duty payable, where accepted without objection, does not require separate disclosure of the valuation method. Such disclosure negates suppression or mis-declaration of material facts, preventing invocation of the extended limitation period. The demand was therefore set aside on both valuation and limitation grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>