9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : A.K. Srivastava, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Aluplex India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-2-2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The case relates to the period 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, when the actual profit in the case of the appellants was 10.59%, 8.48% and 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profit margin should be added to the cost of production of the said goods and adding 15% profit margin was not correct. The adjudicating authority has mentioned in his order that applicability of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, to the present case is open to question. In such circumstances, he has ordered for determination of assessable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 ibid. While determining value under Rule 11 also, principles and general provisions of these Valuation Rules have to be kept in view. The nearest and most fair of these in the facts herein would be as in Rule 8. The adjudicating authority has thus correctly ordered for adding of 15% margin of profit to the cost of production for arriving at the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the value of the components parts of curtain wall in question in terms of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with Rule 8 ibid by adding 15% of profit to the cost of production during the impugned period are proper and legal. The words using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
