ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant is absent and unrepresented despite notice. We have read the appeal memorandum and other papers and heard the departmental representative.
2. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the declared assessable value of the goods manufactured by the appellant, a job worker was required to be enhanced by the margin of profit of 10%. The Collector (Appeals) has confirmed the view of the Assistant Collector that unless it is established that the job charges for the manufacture include the margin of profit, they should be considered to be the “cost of labour” and the profit is to be added. It is the appellant’s contention that the charges include the profit and therefore their addition separately is not called for.
3. The Tribunal, in its decision in CCE v. Crown Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1999 (111) ELT 150, had held that, ordinarily the charges claimed and collected by a job worker who supplied the raw material and components for conversion into finished articles would necessarily include the margin of profit, unless it is shown that the job worker received, separately, charges (in addition to the job charges) from the supplier of the raw material. This logic has also been applied by the Tribunal in its decision in Jyoti Structural Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1999 (104) ELT 402. It was therefore for the department to show that the charges recovered by the job worker did not include profit. This not having been shown, we are of the view that the additional charges levied separately on this account could not be upheld.
4. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.