TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 - the valuation has been determined only by adopting a notional profit of 10% on the cost of production which is reasonable. Time limitation - Held that: - the adjudicating authority has recorded categorical finding in Para 5.10 for price declaration for the year 1997 and the subsequent years that the price is based on comparable goods purchased from other manufacturers - this case is to be one of willful mis-statement - time limitation not applicable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Ex. Appeal No. 145/07 - ORDER NO. F/O/77 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shri J. P. Khaitan, ld.Sr.Advocate for the appellant and Shri A. Roy, ld.D.R. for the Department. 4. The dispute is in respect of goods supplied in bulk packing to the appellant s processor for re-packing into retail packs. Since the goods are not sold by the appellant to their processor, but consumed by processor in the manufacture of retail packs. Since the goods are not sold by the appellant to their processor, but consumed by processor in the manufacture of retail packs, the main provisions of Section 4 (i)(a) will not be applicable and the value will have to be done in accordance with Section 4 (i)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975, in force during the material time. The relevant R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sale of such goods. The adjudicating authority has dismissed the valuation under Rule 6 (b)(i) for the reason that the goods manufactured by the appellants as well as by M/s Laxman Chemicals, cannot be considered as identical goods. He has recorded that even though the goods manufactured by M/s Laxman Chemicals, is ultramarine blue in bulk packs of 50 kgs. , the same cannot be considered as comparable goods since M/s Laxman Chemicals has made the same price the basis of an agreement with the appellant. He has further held that there are differences with regard to time, place of removal, formal composition, ingredients and size of the unit, producing goods and hence, two goods cannot be considered comparable in terms of Rule 6 (b)(i). We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
