Interest on delayed credit payments is excluded from assessable value, while extended limitation fails absent suppression.

Amounts recovered as interest on delayed payments from credit customers are not includible in the assessable value of excisable goods where the cash and credit sale prices are the same and the recovery is made only after the sale; the excess interest recovered beyond normal receivable adjustment is therefore outside the duty base. The extended limitation period under section 11A cannot be invoked where the issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour by departmental authorities and there was no suppression with intent to evade duty. The transportation-charges question required fresh factual verification because the existing findings were inconsistent, so that issue was remanded for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest recovered on delayed payments from credit customers was includible in the assessable value of excisable goods. (ii) Whether the demand on that account was barred by limitation. (iii) Whether the issue relating to transportation charges required fresh factual determination.

Issue (i): Whether interest recovered on delayed payments from credit customers was includible in the assessable value of excisable goods.

Analysis: The price of the goods was found to be the same whether sold for cash or on credit, and the interest was recovered only from credit purchasers after the sale. In that situation, the recovered amount could not be treated as part of the sale consideration for the goods. The excess interest recovered beyond the normal receivable adjustment was therefore not liable to be added to assessable value.

Conclusion: The demand of duty on account of interest on delayed payments was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand on that account was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The same issue had already been decided earlier by departmental authorities in favour of the assessee, and those orders had attained finality without being reviewed or appealed against. In such circumstances, the ingredients needed to invoke the extended period under section 11A were absent, because there was no suppression with intent to evade duty on an issue already settled in the assessee's favour.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be barred by limitation and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the issue relating to transportation charges required fresh factual determination.

Analysis: The factual position as to whether the claimed deduction and the actual freight payment matched was found to be unclear and the existing findings were inconsistent. The matter was therefore sent back for verification of the correct factual position and reconsideration in the light of the applicable Supreme Court ruling.

Conclusion: The transportation-charges issue was remanded for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The order substantially relieved the assessee on the questions of assessable value and limitation, while leaving the transportation-charges aspect to be reconsidered on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts recovered as interest on delayed payments are not includible in assessable value where credit and cash sale prices are the same and the recovery is made post-sale, and the extended limitation period cannot be invoked absent suppression with intent to evade duty on an issue already settled in the assessee's favour.

---