TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : The appellants manufacture various goods like Billets/Blooms/Rounds of Alloy and Non-alloy steel falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They clear the goods to various buyers. They also clear the goods to their sister units. Even though they paid duty on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the CE Valuation Rules, 1975 on the basis of Cost Construction Method arrived by the AD(Cost) for the period from 9/98 to 1/2000. (ii) The value of comparable goods as provided under Rule 6(b)(i) of the CE Valuation Rules has not been rejected by the proper officer so as to invoke the provision of Rule 6(b)(ii). (iii) The Show Cause Notice or the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has erroneously held that the appellants have manufactured goods on job work basis and that the value is to be determined on the basis of Rule 6(b)(ii). Such a finding is not correct on facts and also beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. 5. The learned SDR fairly conceded that resort to Rule 6(b)(ii) is permissible after exhausting Rule 6(b)(i). 6. We have gone through the records of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods; A perusal of the above Rule shows that when the value of comparable goods produced by the assessee or any other assessee is available, Rule 6(b)(i) should be followed. Only after it is found that Rule 6(b)(i) could not be followed, due to absence of value of comparable goods by assessee or any other assessee, Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
