Assessable value includes integrated engineering and design charges, with non-disclosure supporting extended limitation and penalty.

Consultancy, engineering and design charges that are integrally connected with the pre-fabrication and design stage of manufacture form part of assessable value as additional consideration when the goods cannot be fabricated without the drawings and specifications supplied. Where such value additions are not disclosed in price declarations, the extended period of limitation may be invoked. The duty-related penalty under Section 11AC was sustained, while other penalties were reduced in light of the overall circumstances and the absence of separate quantification for some post-manufacturing elements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether engineering, designing and consultancy charges paid to the consultant formed part of the assessable value of the machinery and equipment manufactured and supplied by the appellant. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and the penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether engineering, designing and consultancy charges paid to the consultant formed part of the assessable value of the machinery and equipment manufactured and supplied by the appellant.

Analysis: The agreements showed that the consultant's work covered process designing, mechanical equipment engineering, piping, electrical, instrumentation and insulation, all of which were integrally connected with the pre-fabrication and design stage of the plant. The machinery could not have been fabricated without these drawings and specifications, and no reliable segregation was shown between activities connected with manufacture and any separate post-manufacturing work. The amounts recovered in relation to both the EID Parry transaction and the later Vamorganic transaction were therefore treated as additional consideration flowing into the manufacture of the goods.

Conclusion: The consultancy and design charges were held includible in the assessable value, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and the penalties imposed on the appellants were sustainable.

Analysis: The critical facts relating to the consultancy arrangements and the value additions were not disclosed in the price declarations, justifying invocation of the extended period. The duty-related penalty under Section 11AC was upheld. However, considering the overall circumstances and the absence of separate quantification for some post-manufacturing elements, the penalties on the main appellant and the consultant were found excessive and were reduced.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation and the duty penalty were sustained, but the penalties under the other penal provisions were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The demands were substantially upheld, with only the quantum of penalties modified downward.

Ratio Decidendi: Consultancy, design and engineering charges that are indispensable to the fabrication and manufacture of goods form part of the assessable value as additional consideration, and non-disclosure of such value additions can justify the extended limitation period.

---