Valuation of branded goods and limitation under excise law clarified for contract manufacturing and time-barred duty demands

Personal hearing was held not to be a procedural breach where the record showed no surviving request in one appeal and the matter had already been decided in the other. Limitation under Rule 10 ran from service of the show cause notice, so duty could not be recovered for the portion of the demand falling outside the one-year period, though the timely part remained recoverable. For valuation under Section 4, branded goods manufactured under contract for a buyer who controlled sale and pricing were not required to be assessed on the buyer's resale price, especially where the goods were not sold in open market conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment was vitiated for want of personal hearing and breach of natural justice; (ii) whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules; (iii) whether the value of the goods could be determined on the basis of the price at which the branded goods were sold by the buyer under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment was vitiated for want of personal hearing and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The record did not establish any surviving request for personal hearing in one appeal, and in the other appeal the authority had already decided the matter when the complaint was received. On that footing, no procedural violation at the adjudication stage was made out.

Conclusion: Decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: The date relevant for demand was the service of the show cause notice, not the date of the adjudication order. The notices covered periods that were not wholly beyond one year, but the part of the demand relating to earlier periods outside the one-year limit could not be sustained under Rule 10.

Conclusion: Decided partly in favour of the appellants and partly against them; the time-bar plea succeeded to the extent of the barred period only.

Issue (iii): Whether the value of the goods could be determined on the basis of the price at which the branded goods were sold by the buyer under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act.

Analysis: The goods were manufactured bearing the buyer's brand name under contract, the buyer had exclusive rights of sale and pricing, and the goods could not be sold by the manufacturers in open market conditions to others. The cited High Court decisions were treated as distinguishable on facts. In that setting, the manufacturers' sale price to the buyer was not accepted as the assessable value under Section 4.

Conclusion: Decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on the principal challenges to valuation and procedure, but relief was granted only for the portion of duty that was time-barred beyond the permissible period under Rule 10.

Ratio Decidendi: Where branded goods are manufactured under contract for a buyer who controls sale and pricing and the goods are not sold under open market conditions, the buyer's resale price is not necessarily the assessable value; limitation under Rule 10 operates from service of the show cause notice and bars recovery only for the portion outside the prescribed period.

---