9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. Appellant is represented by Shri K.S. Manga, Assistant Executive Engineer. We have heard both sides. 2. Appellant is the Assistant Executive Engineer incharge of the workshop belonging to Punjab State Electricity Board, where PCC poles are manufactured. The dispute arose in the wake of price list No. 46/90-91 with effect from 1-4-1990. The order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and this accounted for the differential value and the lower value should be accepted. The Assistant Collector rejected the contention on the ground that assessable value of comparable goods manufactured by the appellant was ascertainable and should be adopted. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 3. Determination of assessable value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in holding the assessable value of the poles manufactured in the Muktsar Workshop should be based on the assessable value of poles manufactured in the Mohali Workshop. 4. The more important question relates to the adjustments, which, according to the appellant, the proper officer should have made in determining the value under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Rules. The difference in the cost of raw materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and departmental labour was being used in Mohali Workshop and the latter was more expensive than the former. If this factual position is true, that would account for legitimate difference in the cost of labour in the two workshops. The question is whether the cost of labour was really different. It is pointed out that the contract labour used in Muktsar Workshop was being paid Rs. 20.42 per pole. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
