TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lassification of these products. In the present appeal, however, the appellants dispute the classification of HLCs & CBOs backed with aluminium foil which according to them should fall under sub-heading 7607.30 of the Schedule to CETA 1985 and as against that the Department wants the item to be classified under sub-heading 7616.90. The second item which is now in dispute is Coated Board which according to the appellants is classifiable under sub-heading 4810.10 and according to the Department, it is classifiable under sub-heading 4810.90 of the same Schedule. Apart from this, determination of the value under Section 4 of the C.E. Act, 1944 is also the subject matter of this appeal. It so happened that while finalising the assessment, the As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der "normal price" from amongst sale price available at the factory gate, I would consider that the attempt even under Rule 6(b)(ii) should be to find out through the said provision the possible sale price. Therefore, without going into individual items discussed in the order-in-original and also in the appeal memorandum, I hold that as the Assistant Commissioner has tried to find out the value based on what would be the selling price. His view should be accepted". 4.It is evident from the Commissioner's finding that value arrived at on the basis of the product's selling price is correct way of determining the value of the captively consumed goods. This is hotly contested by the Sr. Counsel for the appellants. He relied upon the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal may remand the matter to the original authority with a direction that the costing principles laid down in CAS-4 should be adopted while arriving at the value of the captively consumed goods. 6.In fact the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants also pleaded that the matter need to be remanded with the above direction. He pleaded that the Tribunal should also direct the lower authority not to include such elements as selling price and distribution charges to the value so that the lower original authority would determine the value accordingly. 7.We observe that there is no need to give such specific direction as the CAS-4 itself contains element to be added to the captively consumed goods to arrive at their value. The origi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir Monger Unit wherein it is proposed to add 10% of the cost of production as notional profit. In the Show cause notice No. MP-13/ITC/M-II/97-9/497 dated 31-3-95 it is proposed to add only 10% of the cost of production to the notional profit. He, therefore, urged that the matter relating to addition of profit if any is well covered by the decision of the Tribunal and even the Department seems to be agreeing that notional profit can be added as in the show cause notice cited surpa. 9.The learned SDR submitted that in the absence of any separate balance sheet, the department's contention that the over all profit earned by the Group of Companies should be considered to be right. 10.We have examined the rival contentions. It is not clearl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T)] wherein the Tribunal held that such goods are classifiable under sub-heading 7606.90. The learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that this decision has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2004 (171) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.). 12. The learned SDR, however, argues that the Commissioner (Appeals) had adopted the reasoning given by the original authority and not merely depended on the CESTAT'S decision cited supra. She further argued that the impugned goods are not perforated or cut to shape which fall under Heading 7607.30. The impugned goods are different both in description and nature. Since the very fact that they are backed with aluminium foil, they should be rightly classified under Heading 76.07 and not unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard of the kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes. They argue that the residuary entry i.e. 4810.90 meant for "other" is not attracted. 15.The learned SDR argued that the goods in question are meant for packaging Cigarettes and the same is not either meant for writing or printing. She also argued that the board is coated and such board is not specifically included in sub-heading 4810.10 inasmuch as sub-heading states only paperboard and not coated boards. She further argued that the sub-heading does not cover coated boards. We agree that if Heading 4810.10 wants to cover coated board as well, it should have been specifically mentioned therein. The appellants argue that because they are printing something on the paperb....