https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370467 Physician samples identical in substance to market-sold goods were required to be valued on the comparable-price basis under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, rather than on cost construction merely because they were distributed free. The demand on merits was therefore sustained for the normal period. However, conflicting departmental circulars had created bona fide uncertainty, and the assessee's adoption of cost construction in that context negatived mala fide intent, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable and penalties were set aside. Duty for the normal period with interest remained payable, but the extended-period demand and penal consequences were annulled. en-us Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Nov 2018 08:36:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370467 Physician samples identical in substance to market-sold goods were required to be valued on the comparable-price basis under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, rather than on cost construction merely because they were distributed free. The demand on merits was therefore sustained for the normal period. However, conflicting departmental circulars had created bona fide uncertainty, and the assessee's adoption of cost construction in that context negatived mala fide intent, so the extended period of limitation was unavailable and penalties were set aside. Duty for the normal period with interest remained payable, but the extended-period demand and penal consequences were annulled. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370467