https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48492 For captively consumed goods, the valuation method reflected in the superseding Board circular was treated as the correct basis for pending and recalculation matters, and the earlier circular could not be relied upon. In relation to pre-deposit, section 35-F required deposit as the norm, with waiver available only on a demonstrated case of undue hardship; the assessee's financial position and prior conduct did not justify dispensation. The order directing further deposit was therefore sustained, and the challenge failed on both valuation and pre-deposit grounds. en-us Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48492 For captively consumed goods, the valuation method reflected in the superseding Board circular was treated as the correct basis for pending and recalculation matters, and the earlier circular could not be relied upon. In relation to pre-deposit, section 35-F required deposit as the norm, with waiver available only on a demonstrated case of undue hardship; the assessee's financial position and prior conduct did not justify dispensation. The order directing further deposit was therefore sustained, and the challenge failed on both valuation and pre-deposit grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48492