Tribunal includes amortization cost in product value, rejects appellant's argument, dismisses appeal.

The tribunal upheld the decision to include the amortization cost of the pattern in the value of the final product, rejecting the appellant's argument that it was already accounted for. Additionally, the tribunal found the demand not barred by limitation, citing suppression of facts by the appellant. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the lower authority's decision was affirmed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Inclusion of amortization cost of pattern in the value of final product.
2. Whether the demand is hit by limitation.

Analysis:
1. Inclusion of amortization cost of pattern in the value of final product:
The case involved a dispute regarding the inclusion of the amortization cost of patterns used in the manufacture of raw casting in the assessable value of the final product. The appellant argued that the cost of the pattern was already included in the value of the finished goods. However, the tribunal referred to Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, which states that the value of goods supplied free of cost by the buyer to the assessee must be included in the assessable value. The tribunal concluded that the amortization cost of the pattern used by the appellant had to be included in the transaction value, even if the appellant claimed it was already included. Therefore, the demand based on this issue was deemed sustainable.

2. Limitation on demand:
Regarding the issue of limitation, the appellant argued that the extended period for issuing the show cause notices was not valid. The appellant claimed that there was no suppression of facts as the sale of patterns was reflected in the balance sheet. The tribunal, however, noted that there was a clear suppression of facts and mis-declaration by the appellant. Referring to the judgment in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory, the tribunal differentiated the present case from the precedent, stating that the second show cause notice period was not for a subsequent period but for a previous one. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the demand based on limitation and dismissed the appeals.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authority, confirming the demand for the inclusion of the amortization cost of the pattern in the value of the final product. Additionally, the tribunal ruled that the demand was not barred by limitation, as there was a clear suppression of facts by the appellant. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

---