2013 (12) TMI 809

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thority held that determination of value by the respondent-assessee, M/s. Diffusion Engineers Ltd. under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with Section 4(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is correct in law and, therefore, the duty demands confirmed on the respondent-assessee by the adjudicating authority amounting to Rs. 5,75,750/- along with interest thereon and imposing equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC and additional penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 are not sustainable in law. 2. The facts relevant to the cases are as follows:    2.1 The respondent-assessee, M/s. Diffusion Engineers Ltd., ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmined the value under Rule 8 of the said Valuation Rules but should have determined the value under Rule 5 i.e., on the basis of like goods sold. It is his submission that, if one wants to avail the benefit under Rule 8, then the goods has to be used in the production/manufacture of "excisable goods" in Unit No.2. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 does not envisage captive consumption for manufacture of excisable goods and uses the expression "articles". Further, the CBEC, vide Circular NO. 643/34/2002-CX dated 01/07/2002 has also clarified that if excisable goods are captively consumed, then Rule 8 shall apply and where such goods are transferred to a sister-unit, then valuation ....