Parallel invoicing not proved; bought-out site installation items excluded from assessable value for excise purposes.

A mere break in invoice serial numbers was held insufficient to prove parallel invoicing or suppression where the invoice records, accounts and transport verification were consistent and no discrepancy emerged from investigation. The value of bought-out items supplied for erection, installation and connectivity at the buyer's site was held not includible in the assessable value of the manufactured storage tanks, because those items were treated as accessories or site-specific items rather than part of the excisable goods themselves. On that basis, the duty demand founded on such inclusion was held unsustainable, and the confirmation of duty, interest and penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the allegation that the appellant issued parallel invoices was factually sustainable. (ii) Whether the value of bought-out items supplied along with the storage tanks was includible in the transaction value of the excisable goods for the purpose of SSI exemption and duty demand.

Issue (i): Whether the allegation that the appellant issued parallel invoices was factually sustainable.

Analysis: The invoices showed breaks in sequential numbering, but the description of goods, accounting records and transport verification supported the explanation that separate invoice books were used for different categories of supplies. The records tallied with the accounts and no discrepancy emerged from investigation. Mere absence of uninterrupted serial numbering was insufficient to establish suppression or parallel invoicing.

Conclusion: The allegation of parallel invoices was not proved and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the value of bought-out items supplied along with the storage tanks was includible in the transaction value of the excisable goods for the purpose of SSI exemption and duty demand.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the appellant manufactured storage tanks and related machinery as per customer specifications, while the bought-out items were used for erection, installation and connectivity at the buyer's premises. The brewery plant was found to be a massive structure not capable of being treated as a fully manufactured movable plant. Relying on the distinction between the manufactured goods and accessories or fitted bought-out items, the Court held that the value of such items could not be loaded into the assessable value of the manufactured tanks.

Conclusion: The bought-out items were not includible in the assessable value and the duty demand based on such inclusion was unsustainable.

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

Ratio Decidendi: Where bought-out items are supplied for installation or functional completion at the buyer's site and are not part of the manufactured excisable goods themselves, their value is not includible in the assessable value; a mere break in invoice serial numbers does not by itself prove parallel invoicing or suppression.

---