Assessable value for depot sales includes freight and unloading charges, but extended limitation fails without proof of suppression.

For stock transfers from factory to depot or consignment agent premises during the relevant period, freight and unloading charges were includible in assessable value because the goods were sold from a place other than the place of removal and the applicable valuation rules supported inclusion; the contrary view was rejected. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked, however, because the record showed legal uncertainty and an earlier decision in the assessee's own case, and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established. The demand was therefore time-barred beyond the normal period, with the merits decided against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether freight and unloading charges incurred for transfer of goods from the factory to the depot or consignment agent premises were includible in the assessable value for the disputed period. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether freight and unloading charges incurred for transfer of goods from the factory to the depot or consignment agent premises were includible in the assessable value for the disputed period.

Analysis: For the disputed period, the place of removal was the factory gate, while the goods were stock transferred to the depot or consignment agent premises and sold there. The valuation provisions for transaction value and the rules governing sale from a place other than the place of removal were applied. Following the later Tribunal view relied upon by the Bench, freight and unloading charges connected with such depot sales were treated as part of the assessable value and the contrary view was not accepted.

Conclusion: The freight and unloading charges were held includible in the assessable value, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The record showed confusion in the legal position, the later amendment of the place of removal definition, and an earlier decision in the assessee's own case supporting its stand. On those facts, suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established, so the extended period could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The demand beyond the normal period was held time-barred, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the time-barred portion of the demand, while the merits of inclusion of freight and unloading charges were decided against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For stock transfers to a depot or consignment agent during the relevant period, freight-related charges could be included in assessable value under the applicable valuation rules, but the extended limitation period cannot be invoked without proof of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

---