Assessable value of computer peripherals, limitation, and penalty reduction in a split-invoice valuation dispute

Where a manufacturer supplied a complete computer system through split invoices, the Tribunal treated the peripherals and components forming part of the functional system as includible in assessable value because there was no satisfactory proof that they were separate bought-out items. The demand was held not time-barred on the facts, as limitation was linked to completion of investigation rather than an earlier departmental visit or filing of papers. Penalty liability was sustained against the person in charge of day-to-day affairs, but the quantum was reduced as excessive. The confiscation issue was treated as having lost practical significance after the factory assets were sold.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the value of computer peripherals and components supplied along with the computer system was includible in the assessable value; (ii) whether the demand and penalty were hit by limitation and whether the quantum of penalty called for interference; and (iii) whether confiscation of plant and machinery survived.

Issue (i): whether the value of computer peripherals and components supplied along with the computer system was includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the assessee was clearing a complete computer system with integral parts, while splitting orders and invoices to show part of the supply as trading clearances. The record showed no satisfactory evidence that the disputed peripherals were separately bought-out items transferred from a trading premises to the manufacturing premises. The earlier valuation findings treated core components and those forming part of the functional system as includible, while optional or external items were excluded. On the facts, the Tribunal accepted the department's case that the peripherals forming part of the computer system could not be kept out of valuation merely by bifurcating invoices.

Conclusion: The value of the includible components and peripherals was rightly brought into the assessable value, and the assessee did not succeed on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether the demand and penalty were hit by limitation and whether the quantum of penalty called for interference.

Analysis: The relevant notice was treated as being within time because the department's knowledge was linked to the conclusion of investigation, not merely to an earlier visit or filing of papers. The Tribunal also upheld the finding that the managing director was liable in his capacity as a person in charge of day-to-day affairs. At the same time, the Tribunal considered the penalties excessive in the circumstances and reduced them.

Conclusion: The demand was not barred by limitation, liability to penalty was sustained, and the penalties were reduced.

Issue (iii): whether confiscation of plant and machinery survived.

Analysis: The confiscation aspect had already lost practical significance because the factory had since been taken over and the assets had been sold, so no effective relief could be granted on that score.

Conclusion: The confiscation issue did not survive.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's challenge failed on the principal duty-demand issues, but the penalties were brought down and the revenue's grievance was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a manufacturer supplies a complete computer system through split invoices and lacks proof that disputed items were separate bought-out goods, the value of components forming part of the functional system is includible in assessable value; limitation is reckoned from completion of investigation in the facts of the case, and penalties may be sustained yet reduced if found excessive.

---