9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured by the appellants and captively consumed in the manufacture of formulations.The period involved in the dispute is 1974 to 1979. The assessable value was originally determined by adding a notional margin of profit of 10% as furnished by the appellants. There was a dispute between the appellant and the Department regarding the stage at which the product is to be treated as excisable. The Department s stand was that duty was payable at the formulation stage while that of the appellant was that duty is payable at the concentrate stage. This dispute was decided by the High Court of Bombay in favour of the appellant. The Department went up in appeal to the Supreme Court but nevertheless gave effect to the judgment of the High Court resultin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was contended by the learned Counsel that the principle underlying the aforesaid provision in the Income Tax Act would certainly be applicable in the present case also. 3. Replying to the arguments of the learned Counsel, Shri M. Ali, learned DR referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Digvijay Cement v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 272 and Amar Dyechem v. CCE, reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 187. In both these cases, the Tribunal had held that where any refund is falling due to an assessee, the effect of that refund would be applied in redetermination of the assessable value and refund should be worked out by including the element of refund in the price. He submitted that this principle which has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax reflected in the annual reports of the respective years and added the precentage of profit so determined. Subsequently, the amount of refund that they got in the year 1984 was apportioned on a prorata basis for determining the profit for the various year. Rule 6(b)(ii) governing the method of determination of assessable value for captively consumed goods lays down that if the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (1), then it may be based on the cost of production or manufacture including profits, if any, which the assessees would have normally earned on the sale of such goods. Applying this provision, the profit that the assessee would have earned was indicated by them while the profit actually earned by them in the respective ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
