https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218980 Physician samples valued under the cost control method and by reference to pro-rata sale pack value were examined in the context of central excise valuation. The text notes that the valuation issue had been considered capable of more than one bona fide view until later settled by a Larger Bench; on that basis, adoption of one plausible valuation method did not justify penalty under Rule 25. At the same time, the duty liability and interest on the disputed valuation were maintained, while the penal consequence was removed. The stated principle is that a bona fide interpretative choice on valuation may not attract penalty, even if the duty position ultimately survives. en-us Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jan 2014 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218980 Physician samples valued under the cost control method and by reference to pro-rata sale pack value were examined in the context of central excise valuation. The text notes that the valuation issue had been considered capable of more than one bona fide view until later settled by a Larger Bench; on that basis, adoption of one plausible valuation method did not justify penalty under Rule 25. At the same time, the duty liability and interest on the disputed valuation were maintained, while the penal consequence was removed. The stated principle is that a bona fide interpretative choice on valuation may not attract penalty, even if the duty position ultimately survives. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218980