ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for disposing of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.
2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of fibre glass products. They produce intermediate products, namely, Acqueous Solution of Phenol Formaldehyde Resin (with Barium Hydroxide) and Acqueous Solution of Phenol Formaldehyde Resin (with sodium Hydroxide). They filed price list in regard, to the intermediate products under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 (for short, the Rules). The price list showed the cost of raw materials excluding the excise duty and sales-tax paid on the raw materials. In approving the price list, the Assistant Collector did not allow deduction of the excise duty and 50% of the sales-tax paid on the raw materials in calculating the cost of raw materials for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value of the intermediate products. He allowed deduction of 50% of the sales-tax. Consequently, he dismissed the refund claim submitted by the appellant. The Collector (Appeals) modified the order of the Assistant Collector by directing deduction of the Excise duty on the raw materials in reckoning the cost of raw materials under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the impugned orders to the extent they relate to claim for deduction of 50% of the sales-tax paid on the raw materials, has filed the present appeal. We asked Shri M. Ali, JDR the reason why the Assistant Collector allowed deduction of 50% of the sales-tax paid on the value of raw materials under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules. Shri Ali was not able to explain. The records available before us do not show the reason behind the exclusion of the 50% of the sales-tax paid on the raw materials. Sales-tax paid on the raw materials must necessarily be part of the cost of raw materials in the hands of the receiver of the raw materials who uses the same in manufacturing process. Therefore, the claim of the appellant for deduction of 50% of the sales-tax is not sustainable. In the absence of an appeal by the Collector, we cannot decide on the validity of the exclusion of the other 50% of the sales-tax made by the Assistant Collector.
3. The appeal is dismissed.