TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are finalized with the issue of this order. The party is directed to deposit the above amount immediately." 2.1 The appellants are engaged in manufacture of- a. Cotton Yarn and Fabrics of Cotton classifiable under Chapter 52 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; b. Blended yarn of Polyester and Cotton, Polyester Viscose Yarn, Fabrics of Polyester Viscose and Polyester Cotton classifiable under Chapter 55 ibid. 2.2 The yarn produced by the appellants was partly consumed by them for manufacture of grey and processed fabrics and partly sold. 2.3 The provisional assessment of the appellants for the period 01.04.1994 to 31.08.1997 was initially finalized by the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise Division-III Ghaziabad vide Order in Original No 184/2000 dated 28.02.2001. The appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeal) was dismissed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeal) Ghaziabad vide his Order in Appeal No 139/2003 dated 31.03.2003. Appeal filed by the Appellant before Tribunal against the order in appeal was allowed by the tribunal vide Final Order No 660/03-NB(A) dated 17.10.2003 and matter was remanded back to the original auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of Commissioner Central Excise (Appeal) appellants have preferred this appeal. 3.1 In their appeal appellants have challenged the impugned order stating that- i. Order in appeal is a non speaking and clearly passed without application of mind. The order fails to take into consideration the documentary evidences justifying the valuation of goods. It has been passed merely reiterating the findings given by the adjudicating authority. ii. The order has been passed without taken into consideration the directions given by tribunal while remanding the matter to original authority. In its order remanding the matter back to original authority, tribunal had clearly directed the adjudicating authority to determine the assessable value in light of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal on the subject. iii. Tribunal had remanded back the matter to adjudicating authority with specific direction to determine the value in light off the decisions in case of- a. Scan Synthetics [2002 (142) ELT 147 (T)] b. Ashok Leyland Ltd [2002 (146) ELT 503 (SC)] c. Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corpn [2003 (153) ELT 249 (SC)] iv. In case of Scan Synthetics and Ashok Leyland it was spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... f. Gurunanak refrigeration Corporation [20003 (153) ELT 249 (SC)] x. The finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal) that the comparable price are neither contemporaneous nor concurrent with the yarn captively consumed or stock transferred is perverse and erroneous. Since undisputedly there are comparable prices available in respect of the most of varieties of yarn sold at the factory the same was to be made the basis for assessment. xi. The confirmation of duty demand that normal price was less than the cost of production is ex facie erroneous and irrelevant in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gurunanak Refrigeration, supra. xii. The adoption of the weighted average price was also in consonance with the provisions of law and is in accordance with the decision of Apex Court in case of Somaiya Organics Ltd [2007 (218) ELT 321 (SC)]. xiii. Determination of the value of goods on the basis of cost of production when similar goods are sold at factory gate is not correct and is contrary to scheme of Rules 6(b) of the Valuation Rules. Reliance is placed on decision in case of Scan Synthetics Ltd [2002 (142) ELT 147 (T)] confirmed by Apex Court in [2008 (224) EL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Notional Profit (assumed) (conversion cost includes the profit of the job worker. Hence No profit can again been taken. Exorbitant) 14.25 Cost of Polyester Fibre taken as R 91 against Rs. 73.80 13 Total 50.01 xx. Demand of duty on 1% Depot Charges is not sustainable and is contrary to the decision of Apex Court in case of Indian Oxygen Limited [1988 (36) ELT 723 (SC)]. xxi. Demand of duty on processed fabrics is unjustified and not sustainable as it is based on presumptions and assumptions. In respect of the processed fabrics the transaction price is actually available and should form the basis of assessable value. xxii. There are quantification errors in the adjudication order and impugned order which needs to be rectified. 4.1 We have heard Shri Atul Gupta and Shri Utkarsh Malviya, Advocates for the Appellants and Shri Mohd Altaf, Assistant Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the revenue. 4.2 Arguing for the appellants, their counsel while reiterating the submissions made in the appeal submitted that- i. Department has never disputed the transaction value of the yarn or fabric sold at the factory gate to the independent buyers. It is also not in dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te. xii. The factory gate price was higher than that price at which the goods were transferred to depot. However they had throughout insisted upon adoption of factory gate price for determination of assessable value. xiii. Further fabric was sold by them to independent buyers and increasing the cost of fabric by increasing the cost of yarn cannot be justified. Thus the demand made on the fabrics is totally unjustified. xiv. Without any allegation or evidence of receipt of additional consideration, the allegation that the prices were kept lower to evade central excise duty is surmises only and has no legal backing. xv. Even in terms of CAS 4 the charges towards administrative overhead and interest cannot be added to the assessable value. xvi. The decision of FIAT India Pvt Ltd [2012 (283) ELT 161 (SC)] would not be applicable in this case as in that case the price at which goods were sold to independent buyers was under dispute because the assessee took the conscious decision to penetrate in the market and that was the extra consideration. 4.3 Arguing for the revenue, learned Authorized Representative while reiterating the orders of lower authorities submitted as follows:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led price declarations declaring the assessable value of the yarn being stock transferred to depots/consignment agents for onward sale. The market rate of yarn (countwise) was declared. Form 1.10.96, weighted average selling price realized by the depots during the previous month was taken and after deducting excise duty incidence, the assessable value was computed. The appellant paid the duty on the assessable value declared. Similarly, in the case of captive consumption of yarn, assessable value was computed with reference to weighted average selling price of yarn sold from depots and/or the factory gate during the previous month. Assessable value was computed after deducting excise duty, packing cost, freight and forwarding expenses @ 1% from weighted average selling price. From 4.9.96, duty on yarn captively consumed was exempted. Duty was payable at the fabrics stage (processed fabrics) in the case of grey/unprocessed fabrics yarn duty was continued to be charged. 5. Price declarations filed by the appellants were provisionally accepted on 19.7.96 by the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants were required to submit detailed chart sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after giving a proper opportunity to the appellant. 11. When an assessee has clearance is different modes, namely, sale at factory gate, sale through depots and clearance for captive consumption, how the assessable value has to be arrived at, has been the subject matter of the decisions of this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Such decisions are Scan Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur 2002(142) ELT 147 (T), Ashok Leyland Ltd. CCE, Madras 2002 (146) ELT 503(SC) and CCE New Delhi v. Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corpn. 2003 (153) ELT 249 (SC). While the adjudicating authority considers the matter afresh, ratio of the above decisions are to be taken note of. 12. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to finalize the assessment with notice to the party sufficient opportunity will be given to the assessee taking into consideration the fact that its factory is already closed from 2000 onwards. The adjudicating authority will pass final orders within a period of four months from the date of copy of receipt of this order." 5.3 From the perusal of the above order it is quite evident that- i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts are different in that case. From a perusal of sub section (1) of Section 4, it is clear that "the duty of excise is chargeable on any excisable goods with reference to value which shall subject to the provision of that section, be deemed to normal price at which the goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal provided that the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale. In the instant case from the perusal of chart submitted by M/s HRM in respect of yarn captively consumed during the period April 94 to Aug 96 (w e f Sept 96 yarn used captively became exempted) it is observed that in respect of 030/2PC 76+33 and 040/IVP 52+48, the two major counts of yarn which were used captively in bulk quantity during the impugned period there was no sale at factory gate nor there was any sale from depot during the period. When they were asked to show as to how they have calculated the market rate with excise in column "E" of the said chart (RUD A). They provided a chart showing "calculation of selling rate, which is based upon (Annual weighted average of Depot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery at the time and place of removal, where the buyer is not a related person and the price is the sole consideration for the sale : Provided that - i. where in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold by the assessee at different prices to different classes of buyers (not being related persons) each such price shall, subject to the existence of the other circumstances specified in clause (a), be deemed to be the normal price of such goods in relation to each such class of buyers; ii. where such goods are sold by the assessee in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal at a price fixed under any law for the time being in force, or at a price, being the maximum fixed under any such law, then, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii) of this proviso the price or the maximum price, as the case may be, so fixed, shall, in relation to the goods so sold, be deemed to be the normal price thereof; iii. where the assessee so arranges that the goods are generally not sold by him in the course of wholesale trade except to or through a related person, the normal price of the goods sold by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'normal price' at which the goods are 'ordinarily' sold to the buyer in the course of 'wholesale trade' where the buyer is not 'related person' and the 'price' is the 'sole consideration' for the sale. Against this background, for the purpose of this case, we have now to consider the meaning of the words 'value', 'normal price', 'ordinarily sold' and 'sole consideration', as used in Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. 30. The 'value' in relation to excisable commodity means normal price or the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade at the time and place of removal where the buyer is not a related person and price is the sole consideration for sale. Stated another way, the Central Excise duty is payable on the basis of the value. The assessable value is arrived on the basis of Section 4 of the Act and the Central Excise Valuation Rules. 31. Section 4(1)(a) deems the 'normal price' of the assessee for selling the excisable goods to buyers to be the value of the goods for purpose of levy of excise duty. The expression 'normal price' is not defined under the Act. In "Advanced Law Lexicon" by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, it is defin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t any concession shown to a special or favoured buyer because of extra-commercial considerations, in order that the price be ascertained only on the basis that it is a transaction at arm's length. That requirement is emphasised by the provision in the new Section 4(1)(a) that the price should be the sole consideration for the sale. In every such case, it will be for the Revenue to determine on the evidence before it whether the transaction is one where extra-commercial considerations have entered and, if so, what should be the price to be taken as the value of the excisable article for the purpose of excise duty." 36. In Metal Box India Ltd. v. CCE, (1995) 2 SCC 90 = 1995 (75) E.L.T. 449 (S.C.), this Court held : "10. ... It has been laid down by Section 4(1)(a) that normal price would be price which must be the sole consideration for the sale of goods and there could not be other consideration except the price for the sale of the goods and only under such a situation sub-section (1)(a) would come into play." 37. In Calcutta Chromotype Ltd. v. CCE, (1998) 3 SCC 681 = 1998 (99) E.L.T. 202 (S.C.), it is held : 14. ... Law is specific that when duty of excise is chargeable on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it may be mentioned that under Section 4(1)(a), "value" in relation to any excisable goods is a function of the price. In other words, "value" is derived from the normal price at the factory gate charged to an unrelated person on wholesale basis and at the time and place of removal. 11. It is for the Department to examine the entire evidence on record in order to determine whether the transaction is one prompted by extra- commercial considerations. It is well settled that under Section 4 of the said Act, as it stood at the material time, price is adopted as a measure or a yardstick for assessing the tax. The said measure or yardstick is not conclusive of the nature of the tax. Under Section 4, price and sale are related concepts. The "value" of the excisable article has to be computed with reference to the price charged by the manufacturer, the computation being made in accordance with Section 4. In every case, it will be for the Revenue to determine on evidence whether the transaction is one where extra-commercial considerations have entered and, if so, what should be the price to be taken into account as the value of the excisable article for the purpose of excise duty. These ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. The concept of "excisability" is different from the concept of "valuation". In the present case, as stated above, we are concerned with valuation and not with excisability. In the present case, there is no dispute that AMS came under Sub-Heading 3402.90 of the Tariff. There is no dispute in the present case that AMS was dutiable under Section 3 of the Act. In Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd., this Court observed that the measure of levy did not conclusively determine the nature of the levy. It was held that the fundamental criterion for computing the value of an excisable article was the price at which the excisable article was sold or was capable of being sold by the manufacturer. It was further held that the price of an article was related to its value and in that value, we have several components, including those components which enhance the commercial value of the article and which give to the article its marketability in the trade. Therefore, the expenses incurred on such factors inter alia have to be included in the assessable value of the article up to the date of the sale, which was the date of delivery." 43. What can be construed from the plain readin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and compete with other manufacturer of more or less similar cars. A prudent businessman or woman and in the present case, a company is expected to act with discretion to seek reasonable income, preserve capital and, in general, avoid speculative investments. This court in the case of Union of India v. Hindalco Industries - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 481, has observed that, 'if there is anything to suggest to doubt the normal price of the wholesale trade, then recourse to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act could be made'. That the price is not the normal price, is established from the following three circumstances which the assessees themselves have admitted; that the price of the cars was not based on the manufacturing cost and manufacturing profit, but have fixed at a lower price to penetrate the market; though the normal price for their cars is higher, they are selling the cars at a lower price to compete with the other manufacturers of similar cars. This is certainly a factor in depressing the sale price to an artificial level; and, lastly, the full commercial cost of manufacturing and selling the cars was not reflected in the lower price. Therefore, merely because th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Accordingly, the 1975 Rules had to be applied for computing the value of the bottles manufactured by the assessee and consumed by JIL. 13. Under Rule 6(b) of the said 1975 Rules, applicable to this case, the first option was to value the goods on the normal price of comparable goods and if that was not possible, then, alone in the alternative, Rule 6(b)(ii) had to be applied in order to compute the normal price and consequently, all expenses like selling and organizational expenses, bill discounting expenses etc. which formed an integrated part of the sale invoice, in respect of sales on principal to principal basis, formed the part of the assessable value of such goods. 14. In the present case, the dispute was regarding the correct price declaration. There was no dispute of classification. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the exemption Notification No. 217/86-C.E. as also on the product being modvatable was totally ill-founded. 15. Moreover, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is perfunctory. It has not given any reason whatsoever for setting aside the detailed order passed by the Commissioner. There is no discussion on any of the aspects like difference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble goods, if known to the assessee" indicates that the particulars of comparable prices have to be given by the assessee. In terms of Rule 6(b)(i), such value has to be of comparable goods manufactured by the other assessee. 17. In the present case, the department has found that there were no other manufacturers of similar bottles. Moreover, in the present case, the department found price manipulation. Prices of bottles sold to JIL were lower than the prices of bottles sold to other buyers like Dabur, Hamdard, Maaza, Kissan etc. Further, the department found that the price increase of bottles sold by the assessee to JIL was in the range of 30 to 48% whereas the price increase of bottles sold by the assessee to other buyers like Dabur, Hamdard, Maaza, Kissan etc. was in the range of 50 to 92%. Further, even the costing data supplied by the assessee to the department indicated that the bottles supplied to JIL and their franchisees were under-priced as the selling and organizational expenses and bill discounting expenses were not included in the assessable value of the goods and, therefore, such prices were not comparable with prices of the bottles sold to Dabur, Hamdard, Maaza, Ki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le for determining the normal price under Rule 6(b(i), the only alternative was to decide the value under Rule 6(b)(ii) by adopting the best judgment principle based on the cost of production and the profits which the assessee would have earned. In the circumstances, when the assessee submitted before the Commissioner its profit and loss account on 22-10-1996, due weightage ought to have been given to such accounts. It was not open to the Commissioner to do the costing on the profits of JIL, particularly, when the figures relating to profits of the assessee were available. Only to this extent, we remit the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, who is directed to decide this limited issue in accordance with law. However, this exercise of recalculating the profits shall be limited to under-priced bottles and not to the bottles which have been found to be correctly valued in the impugned order of the Commissioner [See : United Glass v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 209.]" 5.10 Since appellants are challenging the order on the basis of these decisions it is necessary to examine these decisions in greater length: i. Ashok Leyland Ltd [2002 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mal price was not ascertainable for the purpose of valuation under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in accepting the whole sale price as the correct price. 65. In Bisleri's case, the issue as noted by the Court was, whether the assessee had undervalued the aerated water (Beverages) by excluding two items, namely, the amounts received under credit notes as price support incentive and rent on containers as assessable value. The Court after referring to provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act and the decision of this Court in Bombay Tyre's case (supra) has held that the amounts received under credit notes as price support incentives from supplier of raw materials cannot be included in the assessable value, since the department failed to prove that there was flow back of additional consideration from buyers of aerated waters to the assessee and further, the price was not uniformly maintained and favour of extra-commercial consideration was shown to the buyers of aerated waters (beverages). The Court has also observed that under Section 4, the price and sale are related concepts. The value of the excisable article has to be computed with reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." We do not intend to overload this judgment by referring to other decisions on this well settled legal principle." In view of the above observations made by the Apex Court in subsequent decision and finding the facts of this case more akin to case of FIAT India, we do not find that this decision will be applicable in the facts of this case. iii. Scan Synthetics Ltd [2008 (224) ELT 12 (SC)] In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded that considerable portion of the goods consumed captively was sold by the assessee in course of whole sale trade to independent buyers. Para 7 and 8 of the decision of Apex Court are reproduced below: 7. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has held that the assessee was selling a considerable portion of the product in question to independent purchasers at the factory gate. The price charged by the assessee from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be different rates for different periods. There may be cases where even for the periods the highest and the average prices may be taken. The proviso to Rule 6(b)(i) is relevant : "on the value of the comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee : Provided that in determining the value under this sub-clause, the proper officer shall make such adjustments as appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration all relevant factors and, in particular, the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of the comparable goods" 10.It appears that the CEGAT has not determined what would be the appropriate price. By merely discarding the price fixed by the assessing authority the issue does not get solved. What was required to be seen is as to whether there was any ascertainable price and on what basis it can be ascertained. Even for a period the highest or the average can be taken. That has to be done on the basis of the judicial discretion of the assessing officer which can also be decided by the appellate authority by finding out whether there is any rationale in the fixation done. In that view of the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 37 of the Central Excise Act. These rules prescribe the method for determining the normal price in various situations covered by Section 4(1)(b). 4.2.1 Rule 6(b) is applicable to a situation where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee and are used or consumed by him or on behalf of him in production of other articles. As per Rule 6(b)(i), in such a situation, the assessable value of the goods shall be based on the value of comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee, with the proviso that in determining the assessable value under this sub-clause, the Proper Officer shall make such adjustments as appear to him reasonable, taking into consideration all the relevant factors and in particular, the difference, if any, in the material characteristics of the goods to be assessed and of the comparable goods. Rule 6(b)(ii) provides that if the value cannot be determined under sub-clause (i) of Rule 6(b), the same should be determined on the basis of the cost of production or manufacturing including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods. Thus for invoking sub-clause (ii) of Rule ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le determining the price of the goods being cleared for captive consumption by invoking Rule 6(b)(i), on the basis of the price of comparable goods of the same assessee or other assessee, the most conservative price must be adopted, not the highest of the prices as it will lose the character of the normal price. 4.2.3 When it is not possible to determine the value under clause 6(b)(i) and same has to be determined under 6(b)(ii), this value would be the cost of manufacture or production of the goods plus profits, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale of such goods. The profit margin has to be added to the cost of manufacture to make the computed assessable value as close as possible to the "normal price". As per the judgment of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Raymonds Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 327 (Tribunal-LB) and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Raymonds Ltd. reported in 2006 (204) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) while determining the value of the goods under Rule 6(b)(ii), the profit to be included is the notional profit which the assessee would have earned in normal cours....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute about the identity of goods captively consumed and those being sold. Hence this decision too is distinguishable on facts. ix. Reliance Industries Ltd [2001 (131) ELT 237 (T)] The issue in this case was in respect of inclusion of cost of packing for determination of the value of the goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules 1975. Tribunal held that cost of packing should be excluded while determining the value of goods consumed captively. x. Kirolskar Brothers [2001 (133) ELT 97] Issue was with regards to acceptance of different contract prices within the same class of buyers and is hence not applicable to present controversy. xi. Grasim Industries [2001 (138) ELT 570] The issue was in respect of acceptance of contract prices with two different buyers who happened to be in same class. It was not the issue in respect of valuation of captively consumed goods or the goods transferred to depot. xii. Goramal Hiramal [1994 (69) ELT 269 (T)] The issue was in relation to adoption of different value for two different class of buyers and is not relevant for the present dispute. Hence distinguishable. xiii. Devangere Cotton Mills [1999 (108) ELT 807 (T)] The issue w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. since the assessment is made on monthly periodicity and returns filed accordingly the sale made by the assessee to independent buyers during the period of assessment can only form the basis for determination of the value under Rule 6(b)(i) and not for the entire period under consideration as the issue for consideration is with reference to finalization of assessment and not with reference to a demand for specified period. iii. While determining the value for the particular period of assessment in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) necessary deductions from the sale price to independent buyers as admissible in terms of various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court should be considered and allowed. iv. In case the value of the goods cannot be determined as per the Rule 6(b)(i), for the reason that there is no sale of a particular category of goods to independent buyers during that period, the value needs to be determined by application of Rule 6(b)(ii). 5.12 In our view for the re-determination of the value in respect of the goods consumed captively the matter needs to be remitted back to the original authority for deciding the issue after taking into consideration our observations as in p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... independent buyers on the basis of increase in cost of production on account of the increase in the value of the yarn captively consumed the relevant paras of the order of adjudicating authority are reproduced below: "The information (Value Charts) furnished by HRM in respect of fabrics appear to show that they have sold processed fabrics of the value mentioned against Sl No 1 of Annexure XXXVIII and XXXIX. In order to arrive at the value of grey fabric contained in the processed fabrics sold, the cost data furnished in respect of 19 varieties of processed fabrics and the base grey fabrics was taken into account and on that basis the average value was obtained. The average value of the processed fabric and base grey fabrics came to Rs. 42.55 and Rs. 31.35 respectively. In other words, it can be said that in the total average value of processed fabrics amounting to Rs. 42.55, the value component of base grey fabric come to Rs. 31.55. Thus the value of processed fabrics was higher by 34.86% of the base grey fabrics. From the discussions made in foregoing para, it is clear that the differential cum duty value of yarn, the profit margin of grey fabrics and the packing cost of gre....