TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the cost of repacking was includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellant after repacking; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were sustainable on the facts found.
Issue (i): whether the cost of repacking was includible in the assessable value of the goods cleared by the appellant after repacking.
Analysis: The goods were sold by the supplier to the appellant on payment of duty, then repacked by the appellant and resold. The appellant relied on a cost accountant's certificate to show that repacking charges were already included in the supplier's sale price, but the certificate was found unsupported by verifiable data and not corroborated by the agreement or other reliable records. The evidence did not establish that the supplier had already included the cost of repacking done by the appellant. In such a transaction, the value attributable to repacking done after purchase could not be excluded from the assessable value.
Conclusion: The cost of repacking was rightly held includible, and the demand of differential duty was sustained against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation and penalties were sustainable on the facts found.
Analysis: The appellant had not disclosed the non-inclusion of repacking cost and had not made a true declaration regarding receipt of materials for repacking. The Tribunal held that vital facts were suppressed with intent to evade duty, which justified invocation of the extended period. On penalty, the Tribunal held that liability under the statutory penalty provisions followed, though the quantum required reduction in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked, and penalties were maintainable, but the amounts were reduced.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand was confirmed, the plea against limitation failed, and the appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in penalties.
Ratio Decidendi: Where repacking is undertaken by a separate purchaser-processor after the goods are sold on duty, the repacking cost is includible unless the assessee proves by reliable evidence that such cost was already embedded in the earlier sale price; suppression of material facts justifies the extended limitation period and statutory penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
