TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the declaration filed by the Traders/Raw material suppliers, we find that while calculating the assessable value, profit earned by the traders had also been included. We do not agree with the contention of the Revenue that since profit which had been included in processing charges, therefore, cannot be deducted. during the relevant period i.e. from June, 1991 to February, 1994, the rate of duty levied was specific-cum- ad valorem rate of duty. By virtue of relevant Notification, the duty required to be paid was the specific rate @ 0.50 paisa per square meter plus 5% ad valorem. We find that the dispute relates to determination of value on account of shrinkage in the supplied grey fabrics and nothing to do with the specific rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rey fabrics equivalent to 95 meters. Demand was confirmed by the Commr. of Central Excise. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before this Tribunal. There was difference of opinion on the subject between the Members. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the third member. The final order was ultimately passed, per majority, on 3rd May, 2002. According to the said order, the matter was remanded to the original authority to work out the exact amount of differential duty liability on the appellant and the amount of penalty imposed on that. Consequently, the Ld. Commissioner has re-adjudicated the case and determined the liability and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Arguing the case on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd no discussion was recorded in the impugned order. 4. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the respondent argued that the Adjudicating authority has correctly followed the observation of the CESTAT in its final order dated-3rd May, 2002. The Ld. Commissioner while considering the facts observed and took into consideration the brake up of the value declared by raw material suppliers viz. S.K. Fabrics, M/s. Modi Textiles, M/s. Gomati Textiles for the relevant period, the Ld. Commissioner has recorded the following elements of cost: i) Cost of grey fabrics per meter inclusive of transport charges ii) Processing Charges iii) Bailing/Packaging Charges iv) Decasting Charges and v) Profit After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assesse would be entitled to abatement on the profit element,if any, of the raw material supplier/Trader if included in the assessable value. On perusal of the declaration filed by the Traders/Raw material suppliers, we find that while calculating the assessable value, profit earned by the traders had also been included. We do not agree with the contention of the Revenue that since profit which had been included in processing charges, therefore, cannot be deducted. This contention has no merit, as processing charges collected by the Appellant and profit were shown separately, in the respective declaration filed by the Respondent. In the result, the contention of the Revenue cannot be upheld. Further, we find that during the relevant per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|