TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (8) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L. Soni, DR, for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - This appeal arises from order dated 1-2-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order passed by the original authority. The Assistant Commissioner, Bhopal by his order da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r passed by the adjudicating authority discloses that while determining the issue as to whether the assessable value is to be decided as per the erstwhile Rule 6(b)(ii) or in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules, 1975, it was observed that the respondent had cleared very less quantity of reinforced paper in reel form and therefore, it cannot be compared in terms of value and quantity with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the cost construction method of any excisable goods was only to be adopted when there were no sales by the same party of the comparable goods of the same quality and specifications etc. (ii) On the basis of the details of reels captively consumed and also sold to independent buyers during the disputed period as furnished by the party now before me, I find that there had in fact been sales....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charges for converting the reels into sheets. In terms of para 8 of CEGAT's decision reported in 2000 (124) E.L.T. 457 (T), if this aspect is taken into account, both the reels and the cut paper can be treated as the comparable goods after adjusting the margin of cost for conversion from the sale price of cut paper to independent buyers. (iv) When comparable goods for the same quality evid....