9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sheet had reflected the profit 15.24 per cent, it is this profit which is sought to be adopted by the department for determining the assessable value of ore concentrate - there is no justification for adopting the profit margin of the respondent company during 1999-2000 in its balance sheet and that the profit margin to be adopted is the profit margin in respect of the ore concentrate unit only - Decided against revenue. - Appeal No. E/1223/2006-EX [DB] - Final order no. 51947/2015 - Dated:- 22-5-2015 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) And Mrs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Pramod Kumar, JCDR For the Respondent : Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate ORDER Per: Rakesh Kumar The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner by a common order-in-original dated 25/8/2003. In this order, the Assistant Commissioner, while holding that current year s cost of production is to be adopted held that since during 1999-2000, ore concentrate unit was making loss he adopted the notional profit margin of 10%. Accordingly, he confirmed the total duty demand of ₹ 21,14,119/- against the respondent along with interest on it under section 11 AB and besides this, imposed penalty of ₹ 5 lakh on the respondent under Rule 173Q. 1.2. Against this order of the Commissioner while the respondent filed an appeal challenging the cost of production adopted, the department filed an appeal challenging the part of the Assistant Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... like fabrics and cements and these goods were being manufactured out in different factories, while this is not so in the present case; that earlier in respect of the Jawar Mines of the Appellant company, the ore concentrate was being cleared to smelting unit on payment of duty on the value determined under Rule 6 (b) (ii) and at that time, overall profit margin of respondent company was being adopted and the respondent cannot adopt two different practices on similar issue for two different units and that in view of this, the impugned order of the Commissioner (appeals) with regard to the profit margin to be added for determining the assessable value under Rule 6 (b) (ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 is not correct. 5. Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal, which is in respect of the respondent s own case, is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no merit in the Revenue s appeal. 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. The dispute in this case is in respect of the clearances of ore concentrate made by Rajpura Dariba Mines unit of the respondent company and the point of dispute is regarding assessable value of the ore concentrate cleared for captive consumption to the smelting units of the respondent. While determining the assessable value under Rule 6 (b) (ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975, the dispute is only about the profit margin to be added. While according to the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
