2008 (12) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether developing and designing charges recovered from customers should be included in the assessable value under the Central Excise Act.
2. Whether the demand raised was within the period of limitation.
3. Whether there was suppression on the part of the appellant justifying the extended period for demand.

Issue 1: Assessable Value Inclusion
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing SS Castings, raised separate commercial invoices for developing and designing charges collected from customers. The main issue was whether these charges should be part of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that charges for designing and development, essential for manufacturing, form part of the assessable value. The appellant's argument of a similar matter admitted by the Supreme Court was rejected. The Commissioner emphasized that the appellant did not inform the department about these charges, justifying the extended demand period. The duty was confirmed, and the penalty reduced to Rs. 5,000 based on legal precedents.

Issue 2: Period of Limitation
The appellant contended that the demand raised was beyond the period of limitation, and there was no suppression warranting the extended period. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the demand was within the extended period due to the non-disclosure of commercial invoices to the department. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument, emphasizing that even if there were doubts, the charges should have been reflected in the Central Excise invoices. As the recovery was through separate commercial invoices undisclosed to the Revenue, the invocation of the extended period was deemed justified, leading to the confirmation of duty and interest.

Issue 3: Suppression and Bona Fide
Regarding suppression, the appellant admitted that commercial invoices were not disclosed to the Central Excise authorities. The Tribunal held that the failure to disclose these invoices indicated a lack of bona fide on the appellant's part. Despite the appellant's belief that the charges need not be added to the assessable value, the Tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period due to non-disclosure. The duty and interest were confirmed, and the penalty remained at Rs. 5,000 as reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal on 16-12-2008, affirming the duty and interest while maintaining the penalty at Rs. 5,000. The judgment underscored the importance of disclosing all relevant charges in Central Excise invoices and highlighted the consequences of non-disclosure on the period of limitation and duty liability.