Assessable value and limitation: freight to depot excluded, and full disclosure barred extended limitation.

Freight charges up to the depot were not includible in assessable value for the relevant period because the depot was not then covered by the definition of place of removal, so the demand on that basis could not survive. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable where the assessee's statutory declarations disclosed the depot-based marketing pattern and stated that transportation charges were not being added to assessable value; on those facts, suppression or intent to evade could not be inferred, and the second demand was time-barred. The impugned order was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether freight charges up to the depot were includible in the assessable value for the relevant period when depot was not part of the place of removal definition; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for the second demand when the relevant marketing pattern and non-inclusion of transportation charges had been disclosed in the statutory declaration filed with the department.

Issue (i): Whether freight charges up to the depot were includible in the assessable value for the relevant period when depot was not part of the place of removal definition.

Analysis: The relevant period was October and November 2000. During that period, depot was not included in the definition of place of removal. The freight incurred up to the depot therefore could not be added to the assessable value of the final product.

Conclusion: The freight charges up to the depot were not includible in the assessable value and the demand on this count was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable for the second demand when the relevant marketing pattern and non-inclusion of transportation charges had been disclosed in the statutory declaration filed with the department.

Analysis: The declarations filed by the appellant disclosed the marketing pattern through depots and branch offices and also stated that transportation charges were not being included in the assessable value. The information had been furnished to the jurisdictional range office in terms of the statutory declaration. On those facts, no intention to evade duty could be attributed to the appellant and the conditions for invoking the extended period were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue and the second demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant statutory regime did not treat the depot as the place of removal for the period in question, freight up to the depot was not includible in assessable value, and full disclosure in the statutory declaration negatives suppression and bars invocation of the extended limitation period.

---