9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra None present for the appellant. 2. Learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that the matter has been listed on 28/06/2018, 02/08/2018, 24/08/2018 and today i.e., 18/10/2018 and on all these occasions none appeared for appellant nor there was any request for adjournment. It is his contention that further adjournment will not serve any pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese yarn were consumed captively. Alleging that the appellant determined the assessable value incorrectly, resulting into short-payment of duty, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of differential duty of Rs. 4,34,338/- with proposal for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, on adjudication the demand was confirmed and penalty of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 162 (SC). 5. The short issue involved in the present appeal is whether the subjected goods are required to be assessed under Rule 6(b)(i) or under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. It is not in dispute that the same variety of goods which are sold in the market were also used captively by the appellant. In these circumstances the authorities below has rightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les were made to Goan company could not have been the basis. The Tribunal, on the other hand, found that during this period, there was a solitary sale transaction which was at Rs. 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 compara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
