2001 (1) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of the cost of punches in the assessable value of circuit boards.
2. Bar on limitation for the demand.
3. Calculation of assessable value based on the proportionate cost of punches used.
4. Imposition of penalty and demand for interest.

Issue 1:
The judgment revolves around the inclusion of the cost of punches in the assessable value of circuit boards. The appellant, a manufacturer of printed circuit boards, obtained or purchased punches for manufacturing these boards, recovering the cost from the customer. The Commissioner held that the cost of punches should be included in the assessable value. The appellant did not dispute this conclusion, citing a previous Tribunal decision. However, it was noted that the appellant did not disclose the cost of punches to the department, indicating a lack of belief that the cost was not includible. The judgment upheld the inclusion of the cost in the assessable value based on the appellant's conduct.

Issue 2:
Regarding the bar on limitation for the demand, the appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation due to previous Tribunal decisions suggesting the cost was not includible. However, the judgment distinguished between the possibility of holding such a view and actually holding it. It was emphasized that the appellant did not disclose the cost to the department, leading to the application of the extended period of limitation. Thus, the demand was not considered barred by limitation.

Issue 3:
The judgment addressed the calculation of the assessable value based on the proportionate cost of punches used in manufacturing the circuit boards. It was contended that only the part of the cost proportionate to the extent punches were used should be added to the assessable value. The judgment agreed with this contention and allowed the appellant to produce evidence of such use for further boards. The Commissioner was directed to pass orders on this point accordingly.

Issue 4:
Regarding the penalty and demand for interest, the judgment set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and stated that the demand for interest could not be sustained. It was explained that the provision enacted in 1995 would not apply to goods manufactured and cleared during the period from November 1991 to July 1993. As a result, the penalty was set aside, and the demand for interest was deemed unsustainable.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part, addressing the various issues raised by the appellant in relation to the inclusion of the cost of punches in the assessable value, the limitation for the demand, the calculation of assessable value based on the proportionate cost of punches used, and the imposition of penalty and demand for interest.