https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75243 In captive-consumption valuation of denatured ethyl alcohol transferred to a sister unit, the nearest ascertainable equivalent of normal price had to be determined under Rule 6(b)(ii) on a cost-based method, because the Department's comparable-price approach was not suitable on the facts. The yearly highest-price method was also rejected because valuation must reflect a representative price at the time of removal and require rational adjustments for relevant differences. In the absence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, the extended limitation period could not apply, and the penal and interest provisions were not attracted; recovery was confined to the normal period, with fresh quantification directed on cost-based valuation. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75243 In captive-consumption valuation of denatured ethyl alcohol transferred to a sister unit, the nearest ascertainable equivalent of normal price had to be determined under Rule 6(b)(ii) on a cost-based method, because the Department's comparable-price approach was not suitable on the facts. The yearly highest-price method was also rejected because valuation must reflect a representative price at the time of removal and require rational adjustments for relevant differences. In the absence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts, the extended limitation period could not apply, and the penal and interest provisions were not attracted; recovery was confined to the normal period, with fresh quantification directed on cost-based valuation. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75243