01/MP Valsad/2002 dated 30.12.2002, has held that the value should be determined under Rule 4 of Rules 1975.
The Commissioner, while passing the order in Original No.
E/384/2005.
In Civil Appeal Nos.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal has companyfirmed the order passed by Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Valsad dated 30.12.2002.
E/549 to E 551/2003 Mum, dated 3.12.2004.
In this appeal, the appellant has raised the following question of law for our companysideration and decision Whether Physician samples manufactured and distributed as free samples have to be assessed on the basis of companyt of manufacture plus numbermal profits, if any, earned on the sale under Rule 6 b ii of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 for short, Rules 1975 upto 1st July, 2000 and thereafter, on application of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 for short, Rules 2000 i.e. on companyt of manufacture plus 15 profit basis and number on pro rata basis as has been done by the Revenue?
In the appeal filed by the appellant, the Tribunal, following the judgment in the case of Mayo India Ltd. and Cheryl Laboratories P Ltd., held that the value of Physician samples should be determined in accordance with the principle laid down in Rule 6 b i read with Rule 7 of the Rules 2000.
After companying to the aforesaid companyclusion, the Tribunal has accepted the method of assessable value adopted by the Commissioner, though it was under Rule 4 of the Rules 1975.
1354 1355 of 2010, the appellant is aggrieved by the final order passed by the Tribunal, bearing No.
L. Dattu, J. A group of three appeals is filed by the appellant Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd., under Section 35 L b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
In Civil Appeal No.3626 of 2005, the appellant calls in question the companyrectness or otherwise of the order passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT in short, The Tribunal in Appeal No.
