2013 (5) TMI 569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant was clearing the UPS systems along with the battery from their factory gate, they were discharging duty liability on the full value of the system inclusive of the value of the batteries. Therefore in absence of suppression or mala fide, the extended period of limitation was not available in respect of the above demand. The same is accordingly set aside along with setting aside of penalty .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Another part of demand is on account of fact that the batteries procured by the appellant at their depots and supplied along with the UPS systems sold to their buyers from the factory gate is to be added in the assessable value of the final product. 3. We find that the total duty confirmed against the appellant on both the above counts is to the tune of Rs.5,94,696/-. Out of the said amount .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 20th August 2002 by invoking the longer period of limitation. 5. We note that during the relevant period there were Tribunal s decisions holding that bought out batteries supplied with UPS system is an optional item and their value would not be added in the value of the UPS system. As such, there was enough reasons for the appellant to entertain a belief that the batteries procured at the de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X