2018 (3) TMI 1537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order for differential duty cannot be sustained and is set aside - demand set aside. Valuation - margin of profit - impugned order holds that the profit margin is required to be adopted - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of CCE, AURANGABAD Versus RAYMONDS LTD. [2006 (10) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that Cost of production will have to be determined based on the actual cost of production at the factory of production alone and not the cost of production of textile units - demand upheld. Appeal allowed in part.
Satish Chandra, President And V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sri Sanjoy Bhowmik, Advocate for the Appellant Sri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri V. Padmanabhan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n. Aggrieved by the decision in the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 4. With the above background, we heard Sanjoy Bhowmik, Counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Counsel for the Department. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that it is settled position of law that value in the case of captive consumption can be determined in terms of CAS-4 standards. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Cadbury India Ltd. [2006 (200) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) and submitted that such CAS-4 Standards may be adopted even for the period prior to 1/07/2000. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Department justified the impugned order. For the period 01/ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave been adopted for different periods. The impugned order holds that the profit margin is required to be adopted as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raymonds Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in the above case on the profit margin has observed as follows: "5. It will be open for the respondent-assessee to satisfy the Commissioner, Central Excise in the remand proceeding that the notional profit of less than 10 per cent has to be adopted on the cost of productions determined by him. In case, the assessee fails to satisfy the Commissioner that notional profit should be less than 10 per cent, it may add 10 per cent notional profit, as canvassed by the revenue in these appeals, to the costs of production of goods under as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X