Order No. 975/98-A arising from in Appeal No. E/548/93-A. Case: Asstt. Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B. Vs Collr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh. Central Information Commission

Case NumberOrder No. 975/98-A arising from in Appeal No. E/548/93-A
Party NameAsstt. Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B. Vs Collr. of C. Ex., Chandigarh
CounselFor Appellant: Shri K.S. Mangat, A.E.E. and For Respondents: Shri K. Srivastava, SDR.
JudgesU.L. Bhat, President and Shri K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
IssueCentral Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 - Rule 6(b)(i)
Citation1999 (112) ELT 270 (Tribunal)
Judgement DateJuly 13, 1998
CourtCentral Information Commission

Order:

U.L. Bhat, President, (New Delhi)

  1. Appellant is represented by Shri K.S. Manga, Assistant Executive Engineer. We have heard both sides.

  2. Appellant is the Assistant Executive Engineer incharge of the workshop belonging to Punjab State Electricity Board, where PCC poles are manufactured. The dispute arose in the wake of price list No. 46/90-91 with effect from 1-4-1990. The order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise refers to the declared value as Rs. 386.20 per pole. The price list was filed in form No. VI as the poles were intended for captive consumption by the appellant and the same was approved provisionally. The Assistant Collector finally approved the price list directing duty to be paid on the assessable value at Rs. 524.25 per pole. That was the price approved finally for PPC poles manufactured at the Mohali Workshop of the Electricity Board. Show cause notice was issued proposing demand of differential duty in respect of 25416 poles of differential value of Rs. 94.03 per pole. Appellant resisted the notice contending that the labour used in Muktsar Workshop being contract labour was less expensive than the departmental labour used in Mohali Workshop and this accounted for the differential value and the lower value should be accepted. The Assistant Collector rejected the contention on the ground that assessable value of comparable goods manufactured by the appellant was ascertainable and should be adopted. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.

  3. Determination of assessable value of poles captively consumed by the manufacturer is governed by Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. Sub-rule (b)(i) has been invoked in the instant case. According to this provision, the assessable value shall be based on the value of the comparable goods manufactured by the assessee or by any other assessee. According to the proviso to this clause, in determining the value 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. There is no dispute that PCC poles manufactured in the two workshops of the appellant are comparable goods. In this view, the lower authorities were right in holding the assessable value of the poles manufactured in the Muktsar...

To continue reading

Request your trial