2004 (2) TMI 63 - SC - Central Excise

Valuation (Central Excise) - Demand - Limitation - Held that - there was uncertainty in law in regard to the question whether the value of regulators should be included in the value of fans for purposes of excise duty or not; that the appellants themselves had included the value of the regulators upto the period 1984; that it is only in December, 1984 it filed revised price lists expressly stating that the goods manufactured by them are ceiling fans complete, but excluding regulators having been purchased from other manufacturers. The appellants have produced before us a set of price lists which, however, had not been produced either before the original authority or before the Tribunal - Matter remanded back - it is appropriate for the Tribunal to examine the matter whether the statement made by the appellants in the price lists are correct and what the effect thereof would be - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of value of regulators in assessable value for excise duty.
2. Bar of limitation in issuance of show cause notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case is whether the assessable value for excise duty should include the value of fans as well as regulators. The appellants argued that regulators are not part of the fans and should not be included in the excise duty calculation. However, the Supreme Court referred to a previous decision in Jaya Engineering v. Government of India, which ruled against the appellants on this matter. Therefore, the Court held against the appellants on the inclusion of the value of regulators in the assessable value for excise duty.

Issue 2:
The second question raised in this case pertains to the bar of limitation in the issuance of the show cause notice. The appellants contended that there was uncertainty in the law regarding the inclusion of regulators in the value of fans for excise duty purposes. They claimed that they had included the value of regulators up to 1984 but later revised their price lists in December 1984 to exclude regulators purchased from other manufacturers. The appellants presented a set of price lists to support their claim, which had not been submitted to the original authority or the Tribunal. The Supreme Court found it appropriate for the Tribunal to examine whether the statements made by the appellants in the price lists were accurate and what impact they would have. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for further examination solely on the question of limitation and penalty. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed on the grounds mentioned above.