Excise duty quantification on free-supplied moulds required remand; Section 11AC penalty could not apply before 28-9-1996.

Differential excise duty on washing machine parts had to be reworked because the assessable value had not been consistently quantified after accounting for the amortised value of moulds supplied free of cost by the buyer; the demand was therefore remanded for fresh computation on the basis of the buyer's statements. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also sent back for reconsideration because the duty issue itself required redetermination. Penalty under Section 11AC could not apply for the period before 28-9-1996, as that provision was not then in force; penalty for the remaining period was left open for fresh decision on remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the differential duty on washing machine parts was correctly quantified after taking into account the amortised value of moulds supplied free of cost by the buyer; (ii) Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable for the disputed period.

Issue (i): Whether the differential duty on washing machine parts was correctly quantified after taking into account the amortised value of moulds supplied free of cost by the buyer.

Analysis: The assessee had produced the buyer's statements showing the basis on which the mould value was to be amortised and had paid differential duty on the revised assessable value. Though those particulars were considered, the final duty figure in the impugned order was retained on the basis of the departmental records originally used in the show-cause notice. This created an arithmetical inconsistency in the quantification of duty.

Conclusion: The duty demand required fresh quantification and the matter had to be remanded for reconsideration on the basis of the buyer's statements supplied by the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was sustainable for the disputed period.

Analysis: Since the duty computation itself was remanded, the question of penalty under Rule 173Q was left open for fresh decision by the adjudicating authority. As to Section 11AC, the penal provision was not in force for the period prior to 28-9-1996, so the claim for penalty for that earlier period could not be sustained. For the remaining period, the issue of liability and extent of penalty was also left for reconsideration on remand.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was not sustainable for the period prior to 28-9-1996, and the remaining penalty issues were remanded for fresh decision.

Final Conclusion: The order was set aside to the extent the duty demand needed fresh quantification, the assessee's appeal succeeded on remand, and the Revenue's challenge to penalty succeeded only for the post-28-9-1996 period being sent back for reconsideration.

---