Assessable value includes pre-clearance coating charges; suppression of factory movement records sustains extended limitation and penalty.

Coating charges were held includible in the assessable value where bare pipes remained within the factory, were moved internally for coating, and only coated pipes were cleared to the buyer. The process did not need to amount to manufacture; it was enough that the coating was done before removal from the place of clearance and formed part of the goods actually sold. The undisclosed split arrangement and internal movement records supported a finding of suppression, so the extended limitation period applied and penalty under section 11AC was sustained. Duty, interest, and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cost of coating charges was includible in the assessable value and duty was payable when coated pipes, not bare pipes, were cleared from the factory; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invocable on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether the cost of coating charges was includible in the assessable value and duty was payable when coated pipes, not bare pipes, were cleared from the factory.

Analysis: The tender documents and letters of intent showed that the supply arrangement was split between bare pipes and coating work, but the evidence established that the bare pipes never left the registered factory premises. The pipes were shifted from one division to another within the same factory for coating, and the goods actually removed for delivery to the buyer were the coated pipes. Even though coating may not amount to manufacture by itself, where such process is carried out before clearance from the place of removal, its cost forms part of the value of the goods cleared. The factual position was consistent with the invoices and movement records, which supported the conclusion that the coated pipes were the goods actually sold and removed.

Conclusion: Duty was payable on the coated pipes and the coating charges were includible in the assessable value, in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invocable on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The material facts regarding internal movement of the pipes within the factory, the nature of the coating activity, and the split contractual arrangement were not disclosed to the department. The circumstances showed deliberate suppression of the true nature of clearance and an attempt to avoid duty on coating charges. On that basis, the extended period was attracted and the ingredients for mandatory penalty were present.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked and penalty under section 11AC was sustainable, in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the duty demand, interest, and penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: When a process is carried out within the factory before clearance and the processed goods are the goods actually removed from the place of removal, the cost of that process is includible in assessable value even if the process does not independently amount to manufacture; deliberate nondisclosure of these facts justifies invocation of the extended period and penalty.

---