https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113407 For containers cleared for captive consumption, valuation had to follow the comparable-goods method under Rule 6(b)(i) with appropriate adjustments for proven differences; the residual method under Rule 6(b)(ii) could not be used without reliable stock, production, or quality records showing material variation. Because the assessee failed to establish that captive and market clearances were not comparable, the valuation demand was upheld. On penalty, the short-levy was treated as arising from misunderstanding of the legal provisions, so the Section 11AC penalty was found excessive and reduced. en-us Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 May 2012 11:52:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113407 For containers cleared for captive consumption, valuation had to follow the comparable-goods method under Rule 6(b)(i) with appropriate adjustments for proven differences; the residual method under Rule 6(b)(ii) could not be used without reliable stock, production, or quality records showing material variation. Because the assessee failed to establish that captive and market clearances were not comparable, the valuation demand was upheld. On penalty, the short-levy was treated as arising from misunderstanding of the legal provisions, so the Section 11AC penalty was found excessive and reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113407