Per Shri P.C. Jain :

Since a similar issue is involved in all the matters, a common order is being passed. For the convenience, we are taking the facts involved in the case of Radiant Electronics.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows :-

2.1 The respondents herein assembled colour T.V. from T.V. kits obtained by it from ET&T. It is alleged by the Revenue on the basis of a circular of ET&T that the selling price of the T.V. kits after a particular date i.e. 1.6.88 was Rs. 5,299.84 per kit. The circular recommended conversion cost at the rate of Rs. 250 per kit and manufacturing margin at the rate of Rs. 250 per T.V. set. Thus the value of the particular model of T.V. set produced by the Respondent herein works out to Rs. 5,799.84 (Rs. 5,299.84 + Rs. 250 + Rs. 250). Accordingly, it has been alleged by the Revenue that the Central Excise duty required to be paid was to be at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- basic and special at the rate of 5% of basic per set. The respondent, however, paid the duty at the rate of Rs. 1500 + special Central Excise duty at the rate of 5% of basic per set applicable to colour T.V. sets, value of which did not exceed of Rs. 5000/-.

2.2 On the other hand, the respondents' case is that after manufacturing of the T.V. Sets from the T.V. kits purchased by him from the open market they have sold all the sets to M/s. Ipitron Times Ltd. and M/s. Ipicol at the rate of Rs. 4,845/- per set. Since the said sale price is available, the same should be the assessable value. The duty paid at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per set (basic) + 5% of the basic excise duty was correct.

2.3 The Assistant Collector, however, confirmed the amount of duty of Rs. 6,000/- basic and Rs. 300/- special on M/s. Radiant Electronics and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00/-.

2.4 In Appeal, the respondents herein succeeded. The lower appellate authority held that once the price under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Central Excises & Salt Act 1944 is available. One need not go to Section 4 (1) (b) and consequently to Rule 6 (b) (ii) i.e. assessment of duty on the basis of cost of production of excisable goods since the selling price of goods is available in the present case and that selling price has not been disputed by the Revenue. The lower appellate authority accepted the Appeal of the Revenue. Hence this Appeal before us by the Revenue.

3. Ld. SDR, Shri T. Premkumar for the appellant-Collector submits that on the basis of the facts given in the order-in-Original as set out above, the selling price of the goods should have been minimum of Rs. 5,799.84. He, therefore, submits that the selling price of Rs. 4,845 per set on which the goods have actually been sold is not an acceptable price and consequently, would not form the basis of assessable value. He submits that it is well settled position in law that duty paid on raw materials utilised in manufacturing of any finished excisable goods should be included in the value of the finished excisable goods. For this proposition, ld. SDR, relies on Supreme Court's judgement in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore Vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. [1997 (20) RLT 709 (S.C.)1997 (92) ELT 300 (S.C.)]. He also relies on Tribunal's judgement in the case of Srinivasan Foundry & Others Vs. Collector of Central Excises [1987 (29) ELT 644]. Another citation relied upon by him is in the case of Castrol Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. [1987 (29) ELT 585].

4. Opposing the contention, ld. consultant, Shri G.K. Mundra appearing for the respondents, has urged that the lower appellate authority's order is correct in law and on facts for the selling price of the goods at Rs. 4,845/- per set has not been disputed by the Revenue. They want to charge duty on the basis of cost of production of the goods on the basis of some circular of ET&T from whom the T.V. kits have been purchased by the respondents herein. This is not permissible in law so long as the price under Section 4 (1) (a) is available and it is not disputed on any ground. He, therefore, pra