2014 (2) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation of goods - extended period of limitation - Whether the cost of the pattern supplied by the customers is to be included in the assessable value of the finished product - Held that - Purchase Order numbers were duly mentioned and the copies of Purchase Orders were also enclosed with the price list. A perusal of the Purchase Order clearly reveals that it contained details about the payment made for the tools and the same will be maintained by the Appellants in proper condition during the tenure of the Order and would be returned to the customers on demand or on completion of the Order. Larger period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act is not invokable when the assessee has furnished the copies of the contract for the sale of the computers and this contract showed the entitlement of the assessee to collect charges for maintenance during the warranty period. - demand of Excise duty for the extended period is set aside. The Adjudicating Authority will recompute the demand of duty, which is within the specified period of six months prior to the date of issue of show cause notice in terms of Larger Bench decision in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. 2000 (3) TMI 74 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI and such demand shall be payable by the Appellants - Decided in partly favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inclusion of the value of pattern supplied by customers in the value of casting.
2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation for raising demands.

Issue 1: Inclusion of the value of pattern:
The judgment revolves around the question of whether the value of the pattern supplied by customers should be added to the value of the casting. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing rough iron castings, contested a demand raised against them for the period December 1996 to August 1998. The advocate for the appellant conceded that the issue on merits had been decided against them previously. However, the advocate challenged the demand solely on the grounds of limitation. The Tribunal discussed the earlier show cause notice issued to the appellant and highlighted that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in the present case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of statutory documents in determining the period of limitation and set aside the demand for the extended period. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and the Supreme Court's stance on the issue, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant on the limitation aspect.

Issue 2: Applicability of extended period of limitation:
The second issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the applicability of the extended period of limitation for raising demands. The appellant argued that due to conflicting decisions during the relevant period, the law was not clear, which was subsequently clarified against the assessee by a larger bench. The advocate contended that in the presence of contradictory tribunal decisions, the appellant should not be penalized for any alleged malafide intent or suppression of facts. By referencing various tribunal decisions and Supreme Court confirmations, the appellant sought the benefit of limitation extension. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and previous decisions, found no justification for invoking the longer period of limitation. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on the point of limitation.

In conclusion, the judgment extensively analyzed the issues of including the value of patterns in the casting and the applicability of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the legal aspects surrounding the limitation period and the interpretation of relevant statutes and precedents to reach a favorable outcome for the appellant.