ORDER : 1. Revenue is in appeal against (i) Final Order Nos. 94-95 of 2001 dated 28th March, 2001 in Appeal Nos. E/1462-R/2000-Mum. and E/1572/2000-Mum. and (ii) Final Order No. A/1692/WZB/05/EB/CII dated 28th October, 2005 in Appeal No. E/1572/02-Mum. passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi and Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai respectively (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. The issue which arises in the above appeals is whether there was any short levy of excise duty on the goods manufactured in one of the factories and captively consumed in other factories of the respondent- assessee. It is the respondent-assessee's case that it has in fact paid duty in excess of the amount due from assessee. What should be the cost of production and what should be the notional profit to be included therein has to be determined first before deciding whether there is any shortfall in the duty paid by the respondent-assessee during the period in dispute. 3. It was common ground between the parties before the Tribunal that the cost of production under erstwhile Rule 6(b)(ii) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 [for short "the Rules"] will have to be determined based on the actual cost of production at the factory of production alone and not the costs of production in all the textile units of the respondent-assessee together. This point has been decided in a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s. Cadbury India Ltd. [JT 2006 (7) SC 147]. 4. Since the alleged short levy of duty has not been reckoned fixing the cost of production of the capitvely consumed goods as required by law, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the original authority. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders of the Tribunal are set aside and matters are remanded back to the Jurisdictional Commissioner, Central Excise for a fresh decision thereon keeping in view the costing principles laid down in the case of Cadbury India Ltd. (supra) while determining the value of the goods under assessments and then add the notional profit to determine short levy, if any, under Section 11A of The Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. 5. It will be open for the respondent-assessee to satisfy the Commissioner, Central Excise in the remand proceeding that the notional profit of less than 10 per cent has to be adopted on the cost of productions determined by him. In case, the assessee fails to satisfy the Commissioner that notional profit should be less than 10 per cent, it may add 10 per cent notional profit, as canvassed by the revenue in these appeals, to the costs of production of goods under assessment and determine the correct assessable value and the amount of short levy, if any. If, on such determination, any amount is due from the respondent-assessee, it will pay the same subject to Modvat/Cenvat relief, if available under law. If, on the other hand, there is excess payment as alleged by the respondent-assessee, the assessee will not be entitled to any refund as Modvat/Cenvat credit of the entire duty paid has been availed by the assessee. 6. All other contentions of the either side including the issue of invocation of the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A are kept open to be decided in the remand proceedings. 7. Both sides are at liberty to produce such further material as may be necessary to decide the remand proceedings.