JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial)
1. This appeal arises from order in Appeal No. 622/96 (CBE) dt. 18.9.96 by which the assessee claimed benefit of taking notional profits of 10% for arriving at the assessable value which was rejected and the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the profit margin at 12.06% during 1993-94.
2. The Ld. Counsel submits that after the impugned order was passed, the Board issued a circular No. 258/92/96-CX dt. 30.10.96 by which they clarified as to how to arrive at the profit tax and should be related to the net sale (total sales-commission). Further, profit percentage was computed should be adjusted for its application on the cost of production of the relevant period in terms of the work note given in the circular and the calculation arrived at, the additional margin would be 9.2% only.
3. The Ld. DR submits that the authorities did not have the benefit of going through circular referred to as the order was passed before the circulars was issued and submits that the matter can be remanded back for de novo consideration.
4. After a careful consideration, we notice that the Board has issued circular on 30th October, 96 clarifying the method to be adopted for arriving at profit margin and the profit margin to be added in the assessable value. This Boar’s circular has been issued after the impugned order was passed. Therefore, we agree with the Ld. DR that the matter is required to be remanded to the original authority to work out the profit margin for its addition in the assessable value in terms of the Board circular referred to above. The appellants shall be heard before passing order by the original authority. This appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(order dictated and pronounced in the open court)
