2017 (6) TMI 1233

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Pune v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Court held that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 would not be applicable as the goods are not used for production or manufacture of other articles either by the assessee or by any other person on its behalf. Rule 8 would not be applicable and the assessment would have to be a best judgment assessment in ter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Valuation Rules, 2000, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant was not a profit making organization? 3. It is an agreed position between the parties that the impugned order of the Tribunal only dealt with Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (Valuation Rules, 2000) and did not concern itself with the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. In the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the above view, Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 would not be applicable as it applies only for captive consumption for further manufacture. Therefore, the impugned order invoked Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 i.e. best judgment assessment and determined the valuation by adopting the principle of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000. This for the reason that Rule 8 per se was not applica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X