ORDER

1. The dispute in this case is about the valuation of aluminium rods. There is no dispute that at the material point of time there was a price control order in force relating to aluminium rods. This was done by a notification issued by the Government of India on 18-10-1978. The grievance of the appellant is that although the law is well settled that the controlled price should be taken as the normal price at which the goods are sold in wholesale trade, the Tribunal has departed from that principle. The reason given for discarding the controlled price as the normal price was stated in the following words :

"The Appellate Collector has categorically observed that from the records it was seen by him that the appellants realised extra amount of Rs. 805 per M.T. as conversion charges in addition to the price fixed under the Aluminium (Control) Order."

2. It has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that factually the Tribunal has overlooked the point that the extra amount of Rs. 805 per M.T. was charged because of jobwork done by the assessee. That apart, what the assessee has charged in a particular case becomes irrelevant when the price control order is in force. If somebo