TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 1125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding that the duty-demand during the extended period cannot be invoked due to the possibilities of the different interpretations regarding the valuation of the Physicians' Free Samples - P & P Medicaments during April, 2005 to January, 2007? (ii) Whether the Ld.CESTA Tribunal is justified in the eye of law, in view of the facts and the circumstances of the case, in holding that the contradictory views regarding the Valuation of Physicians' Free Samples were prevailing during the relevant period, though the decision dtd. 29.8.2006 of the Larger Bench of the learned Tribunal delivered in the case of; Blue Cross Laboratories Ltd. V/s. CCE [2006(202)E.L.T. 182 (Tri.)], confirmed and upheld by the decision dtd. 28.9.2006 by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, 2002 cannot be levied, because of the possibilities of the different interpretations regarding the Valuation of the Physicians' Free Samples, namely, P & P Medicaments, during the period from April, 2005 to January, 2007? Whether is it just and proper, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dtd. 29.9.2008 delivered in the case of: Union of India V/s. M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008-TIOL-192-SC-CXLB]? 2 The respondent - assessee is engaged in the manufacture of "P & P Medicaments" falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee cleared Physician Samples of the said P & P Medicaments by paying duty on the assessable value determined on cost basis. According to the Department, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of physician samples, and as such, the assessee was not justified in valuing the samples on cost basis instead of under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. On 25th April, 2005, CBEC had issued clarification to the effect that valuation of samples which were distributed should be determined under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. The learned counsel accordingly submitted that in the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that extended period of limitation had wrongly been invoked and as such, the appeal does give rise to a substantial question of law and deserves to be admitted. 4 As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, before the Tribunal on the question of invoking the extended period of limitation, on beh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....belief as regards the manner in which the valuation of the goods in question (Physician Samples) was to be determined. It is true that at the relevant time the Board had issued clarification in that regard in April 2005, but as has been rightly observed by the Tribunal, despite the aforesaid clarification the issue was not finally settled as the Tribunal had itself referred the issue to the Larger Bench. Moreover it is settled legal position that a Circular issued by the Board is binding on the Department but not on the courts or the assessees (State of Kerala v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd., (2008) 224 ELT 354). 6 Moreover, the manner in which the valuation of the goods in question was to be determined was merely a difference of perception. ....