Judgment:
1. The short point to be considered in this case is to what extent profit is to be added in respect of the goods captively consumed. Shri Haja Mohideen, JDR appearing for the Revenue justified the action of the Assistant Collector in adding 9.03% as margin of profit.
2. When the matter was posted for hearing none appeared on behalf of the respondents. On going through the issue involved in this case, we find that the matter can be finalised after hearing the ld. DR.3. In terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of valuation Rules it is clear that notional profit is required to be added to the value of the goods captively consumed including profits, if any, earned by the assessee in determining the assessable value. In the instant case the Assistant Collector has taken the margin of profit as 9.03%. On the other hand the Collector (Appeals) observed that the Assistant Collector should have accepted the profit as shown in the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account which is 6.7%. He also observed that the Assistant Collector has also not given any cogent reasons in adopting 9.03% as margin of profit.
4. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the categorical findings of the Collector (Appeals) that profit showing in the Balance Sheet is to be added to the goods captively consumed in the absence of any reasons given by the Assistant Collector, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) in adding the profit in the Balance Sheet.
5. In the result, as aforesaid, the appeal filed by the Department is hereby dismissed.