https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265498 Physician samples were in dispute on valuation, with competing approaches advanced on a pro rata basis of traded goods, transaction value, and cost construction. The Tribunal found that the adjudication order contained no clear finding on the applicability of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules or on valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the governing valuation method had not been definitively determined and the parties' submissions and cited case law required fuller consideration, the matter could not be finally resolved at that stage. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the parties. en-us Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:28:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265498 Physician samples were in dispute on valuation, with competing approaches advanced on a pro rata basis of traded goods, transaction value, and cost construction. The Tribunal found that the adjudication order contained no clear finding on the applicability of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules or on valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the governing valuation method had not been definitively determined and the parties' submissions and cited case law required fuller consideration, the matter could not be finally resolved at that stage. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after hearing the parties. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265498