9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lists filed by respondent herein. 2. Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of electric motors and transformers for which intermediate products, namely electric stampings and laminations are also produced and captively consumed. We are concerned in these appeals with five price lists filed during the period from 1-8-1980 to 16-6-1982. Price lists were provisionally approved and by the two separate orders finally approved. The price lists were filed under Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules, 1975 on the ground that Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules was not applicable. Assistant Collector agreed with the stand taken by the respondent and granted approval. Collector of Central Excise directed Assistant Collector to file an appeal before the Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amining the record should be to satisfy himself as to legality or propriety of any such decision or order. Where the Collector is so satisfied he may by order direct the subordinate authority to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for determination of such points arising out of the decision or order, as may be specified in his order. According to the Collector (Appeals) the contention that Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules was applicable did not arise from the record of the case or from the decision of the Assistant Collector and therefore, the Collector could not have directed determination of the point. 4. In Phoenix Overseas (P) Ltd. case the Tribunal indicated that the authority acting under Section 35E has to confine itself to the record of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or otherwise of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules did arise from the record and the order. Hence, the Collector of Central Excise was justified in directing the Assistant Collector to apply to the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35E(2) of the Act to decide the point as to the applicability of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules. In this connection we may refer to a decision of a Three-Member Bench of the Tribunal in COC v. Northern Plastics Ltd. - 1980 (45) E.L.T. 263. It was argued before the Bench that the Board under Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 (similar language in Section 35E of the Central Excises Act, 1944) directed the Collector to file application before the Tribunal in respect of points not considered by the Collector. The Tribunal held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference, if any, in the material characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of the comparable goods; (ii) if the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i), on the cost of production or manufacture including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods." According to sub-clause (i) the valuation is based on the value of the comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or any other assessee. According to sub-clause (ii) if the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i), the value shall be based on the cost of production including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods. This would indicate that sub-clause (ii) is resi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
