2017 (9) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cal products. They are paying excise duty on the same. They are clearing some of these pharmaceutical products as free samples. The valuation of these free samples was done by them based on value of similar goods cleared, on pro-rata basis. The Board issued clarification on 1.7.2002 stating that the free products cleared by pharmaceutical companies are liable to value at 115% cost of production. On receipt of such clarification from the Board, the appellant-assessee preferred this refund claim stating that they have paid excess excise duty as the value arrived at by them on pro-rata basis is higher than what is payable on 115% of cost of production, as per the said clarification. The refund claim was partly sanctioned amounting to Rs. 5,26,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1.7.2002 should not be given effect. He submitted that valuation in the present case should have been correctly done in terms of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. 5. The Ld. counsel appearing for the appellant-assessee submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in National Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra) has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the civil appeal of the Revenue as reported in 2016 (335) ELT A27 (SC). 6. On the second issue, the ld. counsel submitted that the method of valuation or rules applicable to the appellant-assessee was never a subject matter of dispute before the lower authority. Now, totally a new ground which was not proposed in the proceedings cannot be taken up by Revenue in the second app....