2001 (1) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant. S/Shri J.J. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate, V.B. Agarwal, V.A. Ram, Vikram Nankani, R.C. Pandey and Ms. Mrinal Bharati, Advocates, for the Respondents. [Order per : C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. -  Respondents are manufacturers of blended yarn. Yarn so produced is captively consumed in the manufacture of fabric. Dispute arose as to the methodology to be followed while fixing assessab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f remand of the Commissioner (Appeals). It has been contended that many varieties of blended yarn produced by the respondents are unique inasmuch as identical blended yarn are not being produced and sold by other manufacturers of blended yarn. There are also differences in quality. Based on these grounds the Revenue contends that Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules relating to assessment of goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of remand by Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, Jalgaon has finalised the assessable value of blended yarn adopting comparable value under Rule 6(b)(i). Suitable adjustments had also been made to take into account differences in the "material characteristics" of the goods under assessment and the comparable goods. 3. Respondents are manufacturi....