Judgment:
1. By the present appeal the Collector has agitated the finding of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) holding that the value has been defined as having same meaning as in Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Since in this case the value has not been defined, the value of the finished product has to include the inputs, tax, octroi etc. to be paid and transportation cost incurred by the appellants.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Melamine faced prelaminated particle boards. For manufacture of this item they procure from the market particle board as raw material. Under Notification No. 161/85, dated 16-7-1985, Govt. of India exempted melamine faced prelaminated particle boards from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon under the said Act as is equivalent to the duty of excise leviable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 with reference to that part of the value thereof which represents the value of the plain particle board used in their manufacture. The respondent herein claimed that octroi, tax and transportation cost incurred by the respondents should be included for arriving at the figure of value for purposes of the notification referred to above.
However, the Department alleged that tax, octroi and transportation cost can not be included in the value of particle board. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein asking them to show cause as to why the value as defined under Section 4 should not be taken as value of particle board. The Assistant Collector decided the issue holding that tax, octroi and transportation cost shall not be included for the purpose of value under Section 4. However, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that the value has not been defined specifically for the purpose of the present notification. Against this order the present appeal has been filed before the Tribunal.
3. Shri A.K. Madan, Ld. SDR appearing for the appellant Collector submits that the word value has been used in the Notification; that the word value has a definite connotation and meaning under the Central Excise Law; that Section 4 is very clear as to what the constituents of value are. He therefore submits that the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that value has not been defined specifically for the purpose of the notification is wrong and therefore the Ld. SDR argued that the value was a well defined concept for the purpose of the Central Excise Act and Rules and therefore prayed that in view of the specific definition and connotation given to the term 'value' tax, octroi and transportation cost should not be includible in the value of particle board for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 161/85. He therefore prayed that the order may be set aside.
4. None appeared for the respondent in spite of the fact that notice of today's hearing was issued on 13-4-1996. Sufficient time was given to the respondent. We therefore proceeded to decide the issue ex parte on the basis of the records.
5. Heard the submissions of the Ld. SDR and perused the record. We find that in the Notification 161/85 the term used is 'value'. We also find that the value has been defined under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. In terms of the definition under the law value does not include tax, octroi and transportation cost. On the other hand, we observe that Section 4 provides for exclusion of these items from the term 'value'. As Section 4 is very clear on what the term value means we observe that the finding of the Assistant Collector excluding these items is correct. Accordingly we restore the order of the Assistant Collector and set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals).