2007 (6) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the Appellant. Shri Y.S. Loni, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. -   Heard both sides. 2. Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant appearing for the Appellants states that during the impugned period from 2001-2006, the appellants sold 90% of the goods to unrelated persons at arms length, the price of which has not been questioned by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pports the impugned order and states that the appellants did not give the details and hence the cost construction method has been applied assuming certain profit amounts and price of raw-material. 4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records we find that during the period, the new Section 4 and new Valuation Rules, 2000 were in force. The Department has not disputed the value fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le." 5. Under the aforesaid Rule, the goods which have been removed for captive consumption are required to be valued based on the value of such goods sold by the assessee for delivery at any time nearest to the time of removal. We find that the Department while assessing the impugned goods has not applied the Rule 4 at all. On the other hand, Rule 8 has been applied which reads as under: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction to unrelated buyers at arms length provides a proper method to value 10% of the goods taken for captive consumption. Rule 8 would have been applicable if there was no sales to independent buyers and the entire quantity was taken for captive consumption. We also find that Rule 9 has no application to the present case as there is no sale or removal by the appellants to a related person but the....