Excise valuation of software with hardware turns on pre-clearance loading and proof of suppression for extended limitation.

For central excise valuation, software supplied with digital loop carrier equipment is not includible in the assessable value of the hardware unless it formed part of the goods at the time of removal from the factory. On the stated facts, the equipment could operate without the software, the software was treated as separately cleared, and there was no reliable evidence that it had been preloaded before clearance; separate treatment was therefore justified. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the department failed to prove suppression or wilful misstatement, and the penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25 could not survive once the duty demand foundation failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of the software supplied along with the digital loop carrier equipment was includible in the assessable value of the hardware for central excise purposes. (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and the penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 25 were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the value of the software supplied along with the digital loop carrier equipment was includible in the assessable value of the hardware for central excise purposes.

Analysis: The relevant test is the condition of the excisable goods at the time they leave the factory. The software was treated by the assessee as separately cleared, and there was no reliable evidence that the goods were removed from the factory after the software had been loaded. The equipment could function even without the impugned software, and the software operated as application or operational software which enhanced utility rather than forming an inseparable component at the stage of removal.

Conclusion: The software value was not includible in the assessable value of the hardware, and separate treatment of the software was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation and the penalties imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 25 were sustainable.

Analysis: The department did not conduct further investigation to disprove the assessee's consistent stand that the software was not preloaded at clearance. The notice rested on inferences rather than proof of suppression or wilful misstatement. In the absence of evidence establishing clandestine clearance or deliberate evasion, the extended period could not be invoked. Once that basis failed, the penalties founded on the duty demand also could not survive.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The demand of differential duty, interest, and penalties was set aside, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, software is includible only when it forms part of the goods at the time of removal from the factory, and in the absence of proof of such pre-clearance loading or suppression, the extended period and related penalties cannot be sustained.

---