https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190347 The court held that Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules applies to goods cleared for trial and demonstration, not Rule 8. The petitioner's valuation method was deemed incorrect, necessitating adherence to Rule 4. Allegations of suppression and non-filing of Form E.R.-1 require examination by the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was deemed premature as statutory remedies were not exhausted, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal process under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:55:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190347 The court held that Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules applies to goods cleared for trial and demonstration, not Rule 8. The petitioner's valuation method was deemed incorrect, necessitating adherence to Rule 4. Allegations of suppression and non-filing of Form E.R.-1 require examination by the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was deemed premature as statutory remedies were not exhausted, directing the petitioner to pursue the appeal process under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190347