TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 - E/655/2006 - A-1239/KOL/2007 - Dated:- 25-6-2007 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Shri D.N. Panda, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant appearing for the Appellants states that dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only through related persons. In fact, he states that there is no sale to related persons involved during the entire period. 3. Heard the ld. DR who supports the impugned order and states that the appellants did not give the details and hence the cost construction method has been applied assuming certain profit amounts and price of raw-material. 4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjustment on account of the difference in the dates of delivery of such goods and of the excisable goods under assessment, as may appear reasonable. 5. Under the aforesaid Rule, the goods which have been removed for captive consumption are required to be valued based on the value of such goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any time nearest to the time of removal. We find that the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and about 90% have been sold. In our view, Rule 4 , providing valuation on a comparable basis adopting the value of independent transaction to unrelated buyers at arms length provides a proper method to value 10% of the goods taken for captive consumption. Rule 8 would have been applicable if there was no sales to independent buyers and the entire quantity was taken for captive consumption. We als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
