COLOUR CHEM LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application is for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant is engaged in the manufacture of dyes and paints. It utilises some of these captively in the factory in the manufacture of other goods. The value of such captively consumed goods was based upon the cost of manufacture provided in Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules. Notice issued to it alleged that in determining the cost of manufacture in the head office, administrative expenses, selling overhead, research and development expenses, publicity and packing expenses had not been taken into account. The Dy. Commissioner accepted the Asst. Commissioner contention that these elements did not form part of the cost of manufacture. The department appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that it would form part of the cost of manufacture and set aside the Dy. Commissioner's order. May be that portion of this order is sought to be stayed.

(2.) After hearing the party, it is prima facie view that except with regard to charges relating to publicity, the assessee does not have a case. The head office expenses to the extent that they are relatable to the maintenance and upkeep of the factory in which manufacture takes place, procurement of raw material, dealing with persons concerned with manufacture and procurement prima facie would be included. The expenses on research and development leading to the manufacture of goods would also be included as to the material in which the goods are packed. It is only expenses relating to selling that prima facie would not be included. The decisions cited by the counsel for the applicant were not in our view, laid down any ratio that helps. Counsel for the applicant tells us that the amount in question had not been quantified and therefore cannot be separately apportioned.

(3.) Accordingly, we decline to stay operation of the order and dismiss the appeal.