Commr. of C. Ex., Mumbai-ii Vs. Omega Rolling Mills Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the respondent had filed the price-list using the cost construction method. the approval of the price-list by the assistant collector was challenged by the department before the commissioner (appeals) on the ground that profit margin had not been added. before the commissioner (appeals) the assessee's claim was that the profit was an element of the job charges. the commissioner (appeals) accepted that statement and dismissed the department's appeal. against this order the present appeal has been filed.2. the claim made in the appeal memorandum is that the commissioner (appeals) had merely accepted the statement of such inclusion of profit without insisting on corroborating material. shri jain stresses this point.3. we find that in the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) the order of the board issued under section 37(b) of the central excise act, 1944 has been cited. the board themselves in the said order have accepted that job charges would include profit margin. in view of this very categorical direction by the board the revenue's appeal on the ground that corroborative evidence was required does not succeed and is dismissed.

Judgment:
1. The respondent had filed the price-list using the cost construction method. The approval of the price-list by the Assistant Collector was challenged by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that profit margin had not been added. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee's claim was that the profit was an element of the job charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that statement and dismissed the department's appeal. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.

2. The claim made in the appeal memorandum is that the Commissioner (Appeals) had merely accepted the statement of such inclusion of profit without insisting on corroborating material. Shri Jain stresses this point.

3. We find that in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the order of the Board issued under Section 37(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been cited. The Board themselves in the said order have accepted that job charges would include profit margin. In view of this very categorical direction by the Board the Revenue's appeal on the ground that corroborative evidence was required does not succeed and is dismissed.