https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204303 Valuation of job-work manufactured goods under the Central Excise Valuation Rules required application of the correct legal provision, and Rule 11 could not be used to import Rule 8 principles when the factual basis for captive consumption or self-use was absent. The authorities had relied on a Board circular and then applied 115% of cost of production under Rule 8, even though they found that Rule 8 itself did not fit the facts. That approach was unsustainable because the residuary rule did not permit adoption of a specific valuation formula incompatible with the established facts. The lower orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh determination under the proper legal provisions and applicable Supreme Court decisions. en-us Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204303 Valuation of job-work manufactured goods under the Central Excise Valuation Rules required application of the correct legal provision, and Rule 11 could not be used to import Rule 8 principles when the factual basis for captive consumption or self-use was absent. The authorities had relied on a Board circular and then applied 115% of cost of production under Rule 8, even though they found that Rule 8 itself did not fit the facts. That approach was unsustainable because the residuary rule did not permit adoption of a specific valuation formula incompatible with the established facts. The lower orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh determination under the proper legal provisions and applicable Supreme Court decisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204303