9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that would have been earned had the goods been sold outside that was required to be included for the purpose of assessment of duty. The goods being entirely consumed within the factory does not have a comparison basis with sales made by the appellant or, by anybody else, of like goods. At the same time, the appellant is unable to show that the assessable value adopted by the lower authorities does not reflect the cost of production and the profit that might have been earned even if these goods have been sold by the assessee or purchased by the assessee from outside. A loss on the product that is cleared finally using the impugned goods as an input is not relevant for determining the notional profit envisaged in rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second round of proceedings without imposition of penalty and the appeal against the recovery was upheld by the impugned order leading to the present appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for appellant contends that the expression 'if any' in rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, implies that the profit margin was to be added only if circumstances so warranted. According to him, the decision in re West Coast Paper Mills Ltd did not apply in their case owing to special circumstances in which the loss was incurred by M/s West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. On the contrary, it is his contention that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Raymond Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad [2001 (129) ELT 860 (T-LB)] effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta [2003 (158) ELT 15 (SC)]. In the said order, the decision of the Tribunal to adopt a notional cost of production was disapproved off by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the scope for adoption of notional value, insofar as rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules is concerned, is limited to profit element and not to the cost of production. In re West Coast paper Mills Ltd, the issue before the Tribunal was the scope for addition of profit when such was not prescribed absolutely in rule 6(b) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 where the episodal sustaining of loss was held to be irrelevant for the purpose of determining the notional profit. 6. On a consideration of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
