https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332578 Valuation of captively consumed excisable goods depended on the applicable regime. For the period before 01.07.2000, where the goods were also sold in the market and no evidence showed that the captive-clearance goods were of inferior quality, valuation had to follow the comparable goods method under Rule 6(b)(i) read with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For the period after 01.07.2000, Rule 8 required valuation at 110% or 115% of cost of production, and the lower authorities' rejection of a lower-value certificate was not supported by contrary material. The valuation adopted below was upheld, and the demand, interest, and penalty were sustained. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332578 Valuation of captively consumed excisable goods depended on the applicable regime. For the period before 01.07.2000, where the goods were also sold in the market and no evidence showed that the captive-clearance goods were of inferior quality, valuation had to follow the comparable goods method under Rule 6(b)(i) read with Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For the period after 01.07.2000, Rule 8 required valuation at 110% or 115% of cost of production, and the lower authorities' rejection of a lower-value certificate was not supported by contrary material. The valuation adopted below was upheld, and the demand, interest, and penalty were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332578