1997 (12) TMI 399

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1 The respondents herein assembled colour T.V. from T.V. kits obtained by it from ET&T. It is alleged by the Revenue on the basis of a circular of ET&T that the selling price of the T.V. kits after a particular date i.e. 1-6-1988 was Rs. 5,299.84 per kit. The circular recommended conversion cost at the rate of Rs. 250 per kit and manufacturing margin at the rate of Rs. 250 per T.V. set. Thus the value of the particular model of T.V. set produced by the Respondent herein works out to Rs. 5,799.84 (Rs. 5,299.84 + Rs. 250 + Rs. 250). Accordingly, it has been alleged by the Revenue that the Central Excise duty required to be paid was to be at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- basic and special at the rate of 5% of basic per set. The respondent, howe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the Order-in-Original as set out above, the selling price of the goods should have been minimum of Rs. 5,799.84. He, therefore, submits that the selling price of Rs. 4,845/- per set on which the goods have actually been sold is not an acceptable price and consequently, would not form the basis of assessable value. He submits that it is well settled position in law that duty paid on raw materials utilised in manufacturing of any finished excisable goods should be included in the value of the finished excisable goods. For this proposition, ld. SDR, relies on Supreme Court's judgment in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. [1997 (92) E.L.T. 300 (S.C.)]. He also relies on Tribunal's judgment in the case of Srinivasan Found....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as whether the duty paid on wrapping paper as a wrapping paper and used captively for the packing of writing paper was includible in the value of the writing papers which were cleared by the respondents therein on payment of duty. Here, we have no such controversy because there is no controversy in the present case regarding inclusion in the cost of packing. 5.3 As regards the reliance placed by the ld. SDR on the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Srinivasan Foundry & Others, we observe that is case of valuation under Section 4(1)(b) inasmuch as the electric rotors and stators manufactured therein were to be assessed to duty under Section 4(1)(b) i.e. under Valuation Rules. Similarly, in the case of Castrol Ltd., it was found out b....