https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366822 Physician samples sold to the brand owner were held outside section 4A valuation because they were not intended for retail sale and no law required MRP marking on them. Their sale by invoice meant valuation had to be under section 4 on transaction value, and that basis was not shown to be artificial or driven by extra-commercial considerations. The demand founded on section 4A was therefore unsustainable, and the refund was admissible in principle, subject to examination of unjust enrichment and time bar. en-us Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:41:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366822 Physician samples sold to the brand owner were held outside section 4A valuation because they were not intended for retail sale and no law required MRP marking on them. Their sale by invoice meant valuation had to be under section 4 on transaction value, and that basis was not shown to be artificial or driven by extra-commercial considerations. The demand founded on section 4A was therefore unsustainable, and the refund was admissible in principle, subject to examination of unjust enrichment and time bar. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366822