U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR.
2. Respondent was manufacturing "slides" and supplying the same to I.T.C. Ltd., the consideration being job charges by I.T.C. Ltd. Three show cause notices were issued in respect of different periods alleging that the respondent had not included manufacturing profit in the assessable value and proposing demand of differential duty on the element of manufacturing profit estimated at 10%. Though respondent opposed the notices, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demands and his order has been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that he has taken a view against the Department in another appeal on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ujagar Prints case 1989 (39) ELT 493 (SC) : 1989 (21) ECR 1 (SC) : ECR C 1347 SC. This order is now challenged by the Collector of Central Excise.
3. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR contended that no evidence has been produced to show that job charges received by the respondent included respondent's manufacturing profit. This contention is not acceptable for the simple reason that the Department had no case at any stage that besides job charges respondent received anything more from the buyer. Ordinarily job charges cover manufacturing cost and profit of the job worker. Question of paying duty separately on manufacturing profit would not, in these facts, arise.
4. Appeal is dismissed.