1997 (7) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Appellant. Shri D. Gurnani, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)]. -  Appellants manufacture patent or proprietary medicines falling under Chapter 30 [of] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They supplied free samples of their product to physicians and had declared its value for assessment on cost basis. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner took....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessed and of the comparable goods. Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules is the best judgment Rule for valuation. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the value determination by the Asstt. Commissioner but held that the main valuation provision Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act itself will apply. 4. On hearing Shri V.S. Nankani, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri D. Gurnani....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for a price or that there was no profit motive in the transaction. Comparability, the Tribunal held, must be of the goods and not of the buyer or receipient of the goods. But any element of doubt due to disparity in the quantity of contents can certainly be neutralised by granting reasonable adjustment in that behalf. 5. The Tribunal also dealt with the contention that further adjustment ....