2001 (6) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Arguing the case for the applicants Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, ld. Counsel, submits that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol-Denatured. They have two units, one at Captainganj and the other at Barabanki. In their Captainganj unit, the appellants manufactured Denatured Spirit whereas at the Barabanki factory they manufactured chemicals. Since the applicants were using De-natured Spirit captively a dispute arose as to whether the value should be computed under Rule 6(b)(ii) as claimed by the manufacturers or under Rule 6(b)(i) as held by the Department. He submits that the appellants were getting molasses for manufacture of de-natured spirit at controlled prices. He submits that the Department held that since....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n terms of Section 4(1)(b), therefore, the authorities should have computed the value under Valuation Rule 6(b)(ii). Ld. Counsel also submitted that while determining the value assistance may be taken from Customs Valuation Rules which showed that value should be computed in terms of Central Excise Valuation Rule 6(b)(ii). Ld. Counsel also submitted that the entire exercise was revenue neutral inasmuch as had they paid higher duty as computed by the authorities, they would have taken credit of the higher amount and thus, the Department would have not got any extra additional duty. 4. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the applicant is having financial hardship and has incurred huge losses. He, therefore, prayed that since the applic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....On financial hardship, ld. DR submits that the applicants have substantial cash amount in the bank and could pay the duty and penalty. He, therefore, prays that the applicant may be directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty. 8. We have heard the submissions of both sides. We note that in the instant case the dispute is whether the assessable value should be computed under Valuation Rule 6(b)(i) or 6(b)(ii). The Department's contention is that when value of comparable goods is available, the question of going to Valuation Rule 6(b)(ii) does not arise. However, we find that from the records placed before us and the submissions made that the Departmental authorities took the highest value of comparable goods of a partic....