Transportation charges and extended limitation: non-separate invoice disclosure does not defeat deduction or prove suppression without intent to evade duty.

Transportation charges from the depot to buyers' premises were treated as excludable from assessable value, and their deduction was not denied merely because the charges were not shown separately in invoices. The note states that where such post-clearance charges are not legally chargeable to duty, separate invoice disclosure is not a prerequisite to admissibility of the deduction. It also explains that non-production of invoices or non-separate disclosure, in the absence of a legal duty to disclose them to the Revenue, does not by itself establish suppression or misstatement for extended limitation. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty were set aside and the extended period was held inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether transportation charges from the depot to the buyers' premises were deductible from the assessable value despite not being shown separately in the invoices; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground of suppression or misstatement.

Issue (i): Whether transportation charges from the depot to the buyers' premises were deductible from the assessable value despite not being shown separately in the invoices.

Analysis: The dispute concerned deduction of post-clearance transportation charges. The legal position had already been settled that where duty is not chargeable on such charges, the mere fact that the charges and the price of goods were not separately reflected in the invoices does not deprive the assessee of a deduction otherwise admissible in law. On that basis, the denial of deduction on merits was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The deduction on account of transportation charges was allowable, and the objection on merits failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation on the ground of suppression or misstatement.

Analysis: The demand was raised beyond the normal period, but the reasoning for invoking the extended period was not accepted. Since the invoices were not required to be submitted to the Revenue under the governing circular, non-production of those invoices or non-separate disclosure of transportation charges could not, by itself, amount to suppression with intent to evade duty. In the absence of any legal obligation to do the omitted act, no mala fide suppression or misstatement could be inferred.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could not be invoked.

Final Conclusion: The order confirming duty and penalty was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where transportation charges are legally excludable from assessable value, their non-separate mention in invoices does not justify denial of deduction or invocation of the extended limitation period unless deliberate suppression or misstatement is established.

---