2016 (8) TMI 708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... :- the Revenue took into consideration sales made by the assessee to its customer and passed orders on that basis. However, it transpires that sale of goods to the said Goan company by the assessee was only up to June, 1997. Thereafter, no supplies were made and, therefore, for the period in question, the price on which the sales were made to Goan company could not have been the basis. The Tribuna .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : In this appeal, we are concerned with the valuation of goods on which excise duty was payable by the respondent-assessee. The period in question is October, 1997, to June, 2000. The assessee had filed the returns on the basis of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). The Tribunal in the first round of litigation had decided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion which was at ₹ 100 per k.g. in December, 1997. 3. Insofar as the period in question, i.e., October, 1997, to June, 2000, is concerned, there is only captive consumption of goods. In these circumstances, since that was the only comparable price available with the Tribunal, we find nothing wrong in adopting that solitary sale as the basis for arriving at the valuation for the period in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X