https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47247 For valuation of bottles under the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, goods sold to the holding company and franchisees were held not comparable with sales to other buyers because they differed in shape, size, thickness, use and production cost, with price variation and artificial routing also affecting the record; those sales could not form the basis under Rule 6(b)(i). Where no genuine comparable goods existed, Rule 6(b)(ii) applied on a cost-based best judgment method, so the Department was entitled to use that route. However, the profit element had to be recomputed from the assessee's own accounts, not the holding company's profits, and the matter was remitted for that limited exercise. en-us Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47247 For valuation of bottles under the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, goods sold to the holding company and franchisees were held not comparable with sales to other buyers because they differed in shape, size, thickness, use and production cost, with price variation and artificial routing also affecting the record; those sales could not form the basis under Rule 6(b)(i). Where no genuine comparable goods existed, Rule 6(b)(ii) applied on a cost-based best judgment method, so the Department was entitled to use that route. However, the profit element had to be recomputed from the assessee's own accounts, not the holding company's profits, and the matter was remitted for that limited exercise. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47247