TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceed on the basis as if the granules had been obtained by the assesses for the first time. As said in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd.[1999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that the cost of the excisable product for the purposes of assessment of excise duty under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules should be reckoned as if it is reckoned by a man of commerce and that such realism must inform the meaning that the courts give to words of a commercial nature, like 'costs' which are not defined in this statute. In our view, this should have been taken into account in deciding the show cause notice issued to the appellant. The decision of the Tribunal is accordingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.Under sub-section (4) of Section 4, the word 'value' has been defined as including the cost of packing and as excluding the duty of excise, sales tax etc. subject to certain exceptions with which we are not concerned in this case. We may not however that a distinction appears to have been legislatively made between the words 'value', 'price' and 'cost'. This distinction has been repeated in the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), Chapter-II of which pertains to the determination of value. Rules 4 and 5 provide for the value on the basis of the sales made by the assessee in the circumstances mentioned therein. Rule 6 deals with the value of excisable goods which cannot be determined under Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on' in the said sub-rule. Had actual cost not been a factor to be taken into consideration for determining the value of the excisable goods, the sub-rule could have merely stated that the value would be determined on the price which the excisable commodity would fetch had it been sold. 7.In this case, the appellant had already purchased or otherwise procured the inputs for manufacturing the sheets (the excisable goods in question) and had included the cost of the entire amount of granules which went into the production of the sheets. Excise duty presumably was also levied on that basis. The waste or scrap or unused portion of the sheets which was regrind into granules was in a sense already paid for and subjected to excise duty. The cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
