TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR, for the Respondents. [Order per : J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)]. Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. E/1634-V/95-BOM, E/635-V/95-BOM as well as E/636-V/95-BOM and along with Shri Dnyaneshwar S.S.K. Ltd. E/832-V/95-BOM. 2. These four appeals were argued by Shri K.P. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.B. Yadav represented Revenue. Since the issue involved is the same, these four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase prices fixed by WMDC. He confirmed the differential duty. 5. Both manufactures then filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) Pune. Before the Commissioner it was claimed that a price of Rs. 850/- PMT was fixed by the Maharashtra Government. It was however; admitted that this price was not notified under any Government Resolution. On this observation the Commissioner held that this pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion he upheld all the lower orders. 7. We find that both the appellants captively consumed molasses manufactured by them. Since no quantity was sold by them, the valuation of comparable goods manufactured by other assessees would become the basis for determination of the assessable value of the goods so captively consumed. However in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) such value has to be of comparable goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
