TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (3) TMI 616
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y on the captively consumed goods on cost-construction method without taking into account the fact that there was an ascertainable price for identical goods sold to a research Institute of the Central Government during October, 1992 to August, 1993. The department took the stand that the assessee ought to have paid duty on the captively consumed goods on the basis of the price of identical goods cleared to the Research Institute in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee had charged @ of Rs. 125/- per kg., from the Research Institute (Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bangalore), whereas the price estimated in respect of the captively consumed goods by the cost-construction method was Rs. 16.48 per kg. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The above argument has been contested by the learned JDR on the strength of certain decisions of the Supreme Court and this Tribunal. Yet another additional ground proposed by the appellant is that, in any case, the price charged to the Research Institute for a period up to August, 1993 cannot be made applicable beyond a reasonable period to the captively consumed goods. According to learned counsel, the reasonable period in the present case cannot be more than three months beyond August, 1993. Beyond such period, it is argued, the assessment of the captively consumed goods can only be based on the cost-construction method. This argument has also been contested. Considering the contentious nature of the proposed additional grounds, and cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 14.37 per kg 4. 300 kgs. Rs. 125.00 per kg 5. 1350 kgs. Rs. 125.00 per kg 6. 450 kgs. Rs. 125.00 per kg 7. 750 kgs. Rs. 98.15 per kg. 4. From the above data, it is clear that aluminium hydroxide gel was sold in what could be considered as bulk quantities to the Research Institute. Undisputedly, the goods were consumed by the buyer for research purposes and there was no retail sale. This apart, we have found that this Tribunal had occasion to consider the legality of the price-list covering sales of aluminium hydroxide gel to the Research Institute being used by the assessee for valuation of identical goods captively consumed. The price-list filed by them in 1992 in respect of the goods sold to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and consequently the decision attained finality. We are also told that there is no evidence of any subsequent price-list having been filed by the appellant in respect of aluminium hydroxide gel sold to the Research Institute, nor is it the appellant's case that there was any change of law governing the valuation of the goods. In this scenario, in our considered view, the above decision of the Tribunal requires to be followed for the subsequent period of dispute as well, as long as there were sale of the goods to the Research Institute. In other words, the appellant is liable to adopt the aforesaid price (Rs. 125/- per kg.) as the basis for valuation of the goods captively consumed for the material period. The question now arises as to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned JDR has submitted that the appellant had not correctly done the costing of the goods for the above period from 1-4-1994. According to learned JDR, they are liable to determine the correct assessable value for the said period on the basis of cost accountant's certificate in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) invoked by them. In the face of these submissions, learned counsel submits that it was never the case of the Revenue in any of the show-cause notices that the valuation of the goods under Rule 6(b)(ii) was not correctly done and, therefore, there was no reason for the appellant to keep the old records, insofar as the period from 1-4-1994 is concerned. After considering the submissions, we are of the view that this aspect can be best agitated ....