https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360723 The Tribunal upheld the Department's demand for differential duty, ruling that the valuation of goods cleared to own showrooms should be based on Rule 4 rather than Rule 8 of the Central Excise Duty Valuation Rules. The Tribunal found that the revised CBEC circular from 25.04.2005 mandated valuation under Rule 4 for free samples, in line with a Karnataka High Court decision. The appellant's failure to disclose information on goods cleared for replacement under Rule 8 valuation was deemed a breach, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with disclosure requirements and incorrect valuation rule application. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 May 2018 08:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360723 The Tribunal upheld the Department's demand for differential duty, ruling that the valuation of goods cleared to own showrooms should be based on Rule 4 rather than Rule 8 of the Central Excise Duty Valuation Rules. The Tribunal found that the revised CBEC circular from 25.04.2005 mandated valuation under Rule 4 for free samples, in line with a Karnataka High Court decision. The appellant's failure to disclose information on goods cleared for replacement under Rule 8 valuation was deemed a breach, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to non-compliance with disclosure requirements and incorrect valuation rule application. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360723