<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (6) TMI 1233 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273514</link>
    <description>Where excisable goods are neither sold nor captively consumed for manufacture of other articles, Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 does not apply. Valuation must then proceed under Rule 11 on a best-judgment basis. The article notes that P.C. poles not sold and not used in the manufacture of any other article could not be valued under Rule 8, so invocation of Rule 11 was correct and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:02:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 1233 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273514</link>
      <description>Where excisable goods are neither sold nor captively consumed for manufacture of other articles, Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 does not apply. Valuation must then proceed under Rule 11 on a best-judgment basis. The article notes that P.C. poles not sold and not used in the manufacture of any other article could not be valued under Rule 8, so invocation of Rule 11 was correct and the assessee&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>