ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Appellant is absent and is unrepresented in spite of notice of hearing, but has sent a request for decision of the appeal on merits. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.
2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of lamps, was also manufacturing Long Starter Lamination and Short Starter Lamination and captively consuming the same in the manufacture of lamps. In respect of lamination the appellant filed Price List No. 1/83-84, dated 11-5-1983, which was approved provisionally pending finalisation of the profit margin. The Price List showed only the price of raw materials and the cost of manufacture and did not indicate any profit margin. The price list was in force from 1983 to 1987. In each of the years during this period, for the final product in which Long Starter Lamination was used profit margin ranged from 1.84% to 4.40%. Figures for the final product using Short Starter Lamination profit margin ranged from 1.55% to 3.69%. The Assistant Collector directed assessable value of a particular year to include the profit margin on final product for the corresponding year. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed.
3. Both sides agree that laminations as such are not marketable and sale price of laminations cannot be determined. It was in these circumstances that the lower authorities held that the profit margin on the final product may be treated as profit margin on the captively consumed goods. The mode adopted by the lower authorities cannot be regarded as illegal in the absence of any materials to show that there was any requirement to make adjustment of the profit from one product to the other. No materials are before us to show that notional profit margin on lamination would have been less than the actual profit of the respective final product. Hence, we find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal.