2011 (3) TMI 1212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ether Section 4 (1) (a) the value i.e., the price  at which excisable goods are sold by the appellants in course of wholesale trade  to unrelated buyers,  could be applied for determining the assessable value of finished goods cleared by them for captive  consumption in their own factory at Akurdi.  The assessee in this case M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd., have two manufacturing units one at Waluj (Aurangabad) and the other at Akurdi (Pune). They were clearing semi-finished goods to their Akurdi plant on which further manufacturing operations such as surface treatment, etc.,  were to be completed. As such, the clearances of these goods were considered as captive consumption and the assessable value was determined on the b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bove categories.  The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner also did not show the reasons as to why the appellants claim of carrying any additional process on the goods transferred to Akurdi unit was found not convincing and the reasons for discarding the date furnished by the assessee in support of their contention were also not speaking. Accordingly, the Ld. Appellate authority concluded that the goods in question were subjected to further processing of surface treatment, etc., in the Akurdi unit after the clearance from the Waluj unit and, therefore, finished goods sold by the appellants to their unit and the captioned goods cannot be considered as comparable and, hence the application of Rule 6 (b) (i) is ruled out.  Accor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the Akurdi unit whether the goods supplied by the Waluj unit underwent any further process at the other end as claimed by the assessee.The department has not made any efforts whatsoever to ascertain and verify the facts and rebut the contentions made by the assessee. Thus the allegations made by the department remain unsubstantiated.    7. In the light of these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the lower appellate authority that the  goods were not comparable and hence Rule 6 (b) (ii) of the  Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, would apply in the instant case and accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the department.   (Pronounced in Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X