TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i D.R. Gadekar, Consultant, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of PSC Poles falling under Ch. Heading 68.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and clearing the same on payment of appropriate duty. The assessments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 94 (Tri.-Mumbai). 5. We find that the period of dispute is 2000-01. During this period the new Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 came into force. As per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used for consumption by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Rules which are relevant for the period, there is no addition of profit. The Rules simply provided that the assessable value of captively consumed goods are to be taken at 115% of the cost of manufacture of goods. Hence the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts of the present case is not applicable. Other decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the Respondent where the Tribunal has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the value shall be one hundred and ten per cent of the cost of production or manufacture of such goods." In the instant case, though the impugned goods are used by the respondents themselves but it is so used for transmission of electricity and not in the production or manufacture of other articles. Hence we are of the view that Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 is not applica....