https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339123 Contemporaneous route cards and maintained records showed that drilling, reeling and broaching were not carried out at the appellant's unit but at the sister concern's unit, so the goods cleared from the factory were not fully finished goods. On that factual basis, valuation under Rule 6(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, or Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, was not justified. The demand also failed on revenue neutrality because any duty paid by the appellant would have been available as credit to the sister concern, leaving no revenue loss. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339123 Contemporaneous route cards and maintained records showed that drilling, reeling and broaching were not carried out at the appellant's unit but at the sister concern's unit, so the goods cleared from the factory were not fully finished goods. On that factual basis, valuation under Rule 6(c)(iii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, or Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, was not justified. The demand also failed on revenue neutrality because any duty paid by the appellant would have been available as credit to the sister concern, leaving no revenue loss. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339123