9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under Chapter Sub-heading No.3206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner has confirmed a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 1,05,13,140/- with interest and equivalent penalty for the period October 1997 to June 2000 in respect of Ultramarine Blue Laundry grade in bulk pack of 50 kgs sent upon payment of Central Excise duty to the appellant s processor M/s Ultrapack at Hyderabad. According to Department, the appellant should have paid duty in terms of Rule 6 (b) (ii) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. With reference to cost of production plus 10% notional profit and not in terms of Rule 6 (b)(i) of the Valuation Rules with reference to the price at which the appellant purchased identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors and, in particular, the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of the comparable goods ; (ii) if the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i), on the cost of production or manufacture including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods." 5. The case of the appellant is that Rule 6 (b)(i) will be applicable. The appellant had purchased ultramarine blue in bulk from M/s Laxman Chemicals, who manufactured the goods according to the appellant s specification and value was adopted for payment of duty. However, the Department is of the view that the valuation is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uation cannot be adopted on the basis of the price at which M/s Laxman has sold the goods to the appellant. It would be more appropriate to determine the value on the basis of the cost of production including profits, if any. We also note that the valuation has been determined only by adopting a notional profit of 10% on the cost of production which is reasonable. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority. 8. The appellant has also challenged the demand on the ground of time bar. They have submitted that they have filed price declaration indicating that the assessable value have been arrived at on the basis of price of comparable goods. Further, we find that the adjudicating authority has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
