Assessable value and suppression: undisclosed maintenance charges for television sets were included in duty valuation, with extended limitation upheld.

Compulsory comprehensive maintenance charges recovered from wholesale dealers for television sets were treated as additional consideration linked to the sale and were includible in assessable value for central excise because they related to after-sale service during the guarantee period and were not disclosed in price lists or excise records. The non-disclosure of these collections in statutory declarations, gate passes and returns amounted to suppression of material facts, so the extended limitation period applied and the duty demands were not time-barred. The penalty was also upheld as reasonable on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the comprehensive maintenance service charges collected from wholesale dealers formed part of the assessable value of television sets for central excise duty. (ii) Whether the duty demands were barred by limitation in view of alleged knowledge by the department and absence of suppression.

Issue (i): Whether the comprehensive maintenance service charges collected from wholesale dealers formed part of the assessable value of television sets for central excise duty.

Analysis: The television sets were sold through wholesale dealers, and the manufacturer recovered separate invoices for comprehensive maintenance service charges in addition to the declared sale price. These charges were compulsory for all supplies, were not disclosed in the price lists or excise records, and related to after-sale service during the guarantee period. Since the goods were already covered by the manufacturer's guarantee, the so-called service charges represented additional consideration connected with the sale. The principle that after-sale service and similar expenses promoting marketability enter the assessable value applied here.

Conclusion: The comprehensive maintenance service charges were includible in the assessable value, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demands were barred by limitation in view of alleged knowledge by the department and absence of suppression.

Analysis: The assessee did not disclose the collection of comprehensive maintenance service charges in the price lists, gate passes, or returns, and the separate invoices were not reflected in the excise declarations required under the self-removal procedure. The record showed misstatement of material facts and suppression of the true nature of the collections. The extended period was therefore attracted, and the penalty was held to be reasonable in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The demands were not time-barred, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on merits and on limitation, and the impugned orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts recovered as compulsory after-sale service charges during the warranty period, when not disclosed in the statutory price declarations, form part of assessable value and deliberate non-disclosure constitutes suppression attracting the extended limitation period.

---