Valuation and extended limitation in excise stay matters can be defeated by prima facie computation errors and no apparent suppression.

In a valuation dispute, prima facie infirmities in the assessable value computation justified stay: interest cost was treated as not includable under CAS-4, and the revised working appeared to contain duplication in conversion cost, which could have inflated the duty demand. The department also failed to show, at least prima facie, suppression or intent to evade duty for invoking the extended period, particularly where the assessments had been made on approved values and comparable goods valuation was contemplated by the applicable rule. On these grounds, stay was granted and recovery was suspended pending disposal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case on valuation, including exclusion of interest cost and correction of duplication in conversion cost, for grant of stay; (ii) whether the department could invoke the extended period on the allegation of suppression or intent to evade duty.

Issue (i): whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case on valuation, including exclusion of interest cost and correction of duplication in conversion cost, for grant of stay.

Analysis: Interest cost is not includable under CAS 4 for determining cost of production. The worksheets also showed that conversion cost had been added at different rates in the original computation, and failure to adjust the already included element while revising the cost could have inflated the demand. These aspects furnished a prima facie case against the valuation adopted in the impugned order.

Conclusion: The valuation dispute was prima facie in favour of the appellant for the purpose of stay.

Issue (ii): whether the department could invoke the extended period on the allegation of suppression or intent to evade duty.

Analysis: The assessments had originally been made on approved values, and there was prima facie no withholding or misstatement of material facts with intent to evade duty. The order also noted that assessment based on comparable goods was specifically contemplated under the relevant valuation rule, which weakened the allegation for extended limitation.

Conclusion: The extended period was not shown to be prima facie available against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: Stay was granted and recovery was suspended pending disposal of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For grant of stay in a valuation dispute, prima facie infirmities in assessable value computation and an absence of apparent suppression or intent to evade duty justify protection against recovery pending appeal.

---