https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349395 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order in a case involving the valuation of goods under Chapter heading 30 of CETA. The manufacturers had used a cost construction method for valuing goods as "Physician samples," leading to proceedings for recovery of differential duty and penalties. The Tribunal found shortcomings in justifying the extended limitation period, noting no deliberate misstatement or fraud. Due to confusion caused by conflicting circulars on valuation methods, the demand was deemed legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was entirely set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:23:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349395 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order in a case involving the valuation of goods under Chapter heading 30 of CETA. The manufacturers had used a cost construction method for valuing goods as "Physician samples," leading to proceedings for recovery of differential duty and penalties. The Tribunal found shortcomings in justifying the extended limitation period, noting no deliberate misstatement or fraud. Due to confusion caused by conflicting circulars on valuation methods, the demand was deemed legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was entirely set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349395