https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265562 Valuation of physician samples could not be finally sustained because the adjudicating authority did not record a clear finding on the applicable valuation provision, including Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of a definite determination on the governing method and given the appellant's submissions and authorities, the record was insufficient for final adjudication. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law after granting proper opportunity of hearing, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:39:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265562 Valuation of physician samples could not be finally sustained because the adjudicating authority did not record a clear finding on the applicable valuation provision, including Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of a definite determination on the governing method and given the appellant's submissions and authorities, the record was insufficient for final adjudication. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law after granting proper opportunity of hearing, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265562