9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it from ET T. It is alleged by the Revenue on the basis of a circular of ET T that the selling price of the T.V. kits after a particular date i.e. 1-6-1988 was Rs. 5,299.84 per kit. The circular recommended conversion cost at the rate of Rs. 250 per kit and manufacturing margin at the rate of Rs. 250 per T.V. set. Thus the value of the particular model of T.V. set produced by the Respondent herein works out to Rs. 5,799.84 (Rs. 5,299.84 + Rs. 250 + Rs. 250). Accordingly, it has been alleged by the Revenue that the Central Excise duty required to be paid was to be at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- basic and special at the rate of 5% of basic per set. The respondent, however, paid the duty at the rate of Rs. 1500 + special Central Excise duty at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 5,799.84. He, therefore, submits that the selling price of Rs. 4,845/- per set on which the goods have actually been sold is not an acceptable price and consequently, would not form the basis of assessable value. He submits that it is well settled position in law that duty paid on raw materials utilised in manufacturing of any finished excisable goods should be included in the value of the finished excisable goods. For this proposition, ld. SDR, relies on Supreme Court s judgment in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. [1997 (92) E.L.T. 300 (S.C.)]. He also relies on Tribunal s judgment in the case of Srinivasan Foundry Others v. Collector of Central Excises [1987 (29) E.L.T. 644]. Another citation relied upon by hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncludible in the value of the writing papers which were cleared by the respondents therein on payment of duty. Here, we have no such controversy because there is no controversy in the present case regarding inclusion in the cost of packing. 5.3 As regards the reliance placed by the ld. SDR on the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Srinivasan Foundry Others, we observe that is case of valuation under Section 4(1)(b) inasmuch as the electric rotors and stators manufactured therein were to be assessed to duty under Section 4(1)(b) i.e. under Valuation Rules. Similarly, in the case of Castrol Ltd., it was found out by the Revenue and the Tribunal that the appellant therein was collecting octroi duty on raw materials used in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
