TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consumed. 2. Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been manufacturing certain items for their captive use in their factory besides manufacturing and clearing semi-finished piston rings to their sister concern at Patiala for captive use by the said sister unit. During 1996-97, the appellants manufactured one hydropneumatic machine and two auto shakeout systems for captive use and paid excise duty thereof on the basis of respective declarations filed by them. In the declaration, the assessable value was arrived based upon the cost of the raw material cost plus machine and labour cost plus cost of packing, besides profit margin thereof at 10%. He submitted that the adjudicating author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds was sold nor any evidence was brought on record to substantiate that the very goods were sold in market and accordingly, there was no justification in determining the profit based upon the balance sheet. Apart from the merits of the case, he contended that demand of duty in the instant case is clearly barred by time. Show Cause Notice dtd. 11-2-2000 has been issued for the period 1-5-93 - 31-3-97. He contended that neither any information was suppressed nor there was any mis-declaration on their part. With reference to the goods which were captively consumed, the assessee has shown notional profit at the rate of 10% and in the declaration it would have been clearly mentioned that 10% of profit normally earned on sale of such goods. He sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsactions involved were a case of revenue neutrality. 4. Shri Narasimha Murthy, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue justified the action of the Department in determining the assessable value of the goods, which were captively consumed based upon the profit shown in the balance sheet. He submitted that since the impugned goods were neither sold nor marketed, there was no alternative but to adopt the gross profit as shown in the balance sheet, as it was held by the Larger Bench in the case of Raymonds Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 327. 5. In this context, Shri Rajesh Chander Kumar submitted that what the appellant had manufactured in this case were mainly of capital goods and for captive consumption the p....