Valuation of paper reels for excise duty turns on non-manufacture, place of removal, and prescribed valuation rules.

Conversion of paper reels into reams at the depot was treated as not amounting to manufacture, and the slitting or conversion cost was not includible where it was incurred by persons other than the assessee. For the pre-amendment period, where a factory-gate price for similar goods was available, that price was the proper basis for valuing reels cleared for slitting. For the post-amendment period, the goods were regarded as undergoing further processing at the depot, and where comparable prices were unavailable, valuation had to be made under the prescribed valuation rule. The demand was therefore required to be reworked on these valuation principles, with limitation and penalty left open for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cost of cutting paper reels into reams at the depot or through converters could be added to the assessable value for excise duty, and how valuation was to be worked out for the periods before and after the amendment of the place-of-removal concept.

Analysis: The conversion of reels into reams was treated as not amounting to manufacture. For the period before the amendment, where a factory-gate price for similar goods was available, that price was held to be the proper basis for valuation of reels removed for slitting. For the period after the amendment, the goods were viewed as undergoing further processing at the depot, and where comparable prices were unavailable, valuation was to be determined under the prescribed valuation rule. The Tribunal also noted that if the slitting cost was incurred by persons other than the assessee, such cost could not be added in any event. Questions of limitation and penalty were left open for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The demand required reworking on the above valuation principles, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.

---