TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - This appeal at the instance of the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi dated 8-10-2001. Under the above order the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the contentions raised by the appellant that the assessment has to be made on the basis of the ratio of the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the raw materials required. The appellants were paying duty in respect of the products manufactured in Unit No. 2 following the principles in Ujagar Prints case. They arrived at the assessable value by adding the value of raw material cost and packing charges/cost with job work charges. The amount of job work charge included the margin of profit of the appellants also. Show cause notice was issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and a common order was passed. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellants pointed out that job work charges of Rs. 3.40 per litre claimed by the appellant included expense of Rs. 2.20 and profit of Rs. 1.20 per litre. The above would show that the appellants were earning a profit of 36% for undertaking job work. It is also pointed out that for Unit No. 1 where the appellant had to make in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the effect that the dictum in Kandivali Metal Works and J.R. Fabricators are not applicable to the appellants case but the contention was that the value of the brand name was not included in the assessable value as is seen worked out in the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. We are not able to accept this contention which is taken for the first time before this Tribunal. The question ....