9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on the value of comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or any other assessee. Since there was no such commodity or material available to show the value of any chargeable goods, the case was covered under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 6(b). That is, thus, the only provision under which the value could be determined. The only statement of the appellant is that since it was incurrin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr M P Vinod, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr K Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv., Mr A K Panda, Sr. Adv., Mr Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv., Mr Ritesh Kumar, Adv., Mr R K Verma, Adv. and Mr B K Prasad, Adv. ORDER The only question of law involved in these appeals is as to whether the provision of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant but was consumed captively in the manufacture of fabrics, the question of valuation thereof arises while determining the excise duty that was payable on the manufacture of yarn. The respondent-excise department valued the same by applying the provision of Rule 6(b) (ii) of the Valuation Rules. The relevant provisions of this Rule, as it existed, at the relevant time reads as under:- 6( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be based on the value of comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or any other assessee. Since there was no such commodity or material available to show the value of any chargeable goods, the case was covered under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 6(b). That is, thus, the only provision under which the value could be determined. The only statement of the appellant is that since it was incu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
