Excise valuation and limitation principles upheld: revision was timely, remand allowed fresh points, and post-manufacturing charges were included.

Revision under Section 36(2) was treated as timely because the one-year period ran from communication of the appellate order, and the notice issued on 6 September 1978 fell within time. The challenge to the revised price list and differential duty demand on grounds of retrospectivity and lack of hearing also failed, because the earlier hearing defect had been cured on remand and the demand was confined to the permissible period. The Assistant Collector could consider fresh valuation points on de novo remand after notice and opportunity. Post-manufacturing charges were included in assessable value under Section 4 because the assessee produced no material proving actual expenditure or separability from the factory-gate price.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation; (ii) whether the revised price list and differential duty demand could be challenged on the ground of retrospectivity or want of hearing; (iii) whether the Assistant Collector could consider fresh valuation points on remand; and (iv) whether post-manufacturing charges were includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Issue (i): whether the revisional notice under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The period of one year under the second proviso to Section 36(2) was held to run from the date of communication of the appellate order, and on the facts the notice issued on 6 September 1978 was within time because the appellate order could not be treated as earlier than its despatch on 15 September 1977. The special limitation based on Rule 10 and the later provisions of Section 11A did not assist the petitioners on the relevant dates.

Conclusion: The revision was within limitation and the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): whether the revised price list and differential duty demand could be challenged on the ground of retrospectivity or want of hearing.

Analysis: The complaint of lack of hearing had already been cured by remand and fresh hearing before the Assistant Collector. As to retrospectivity, the demand was confined to the permissible period under Rule 10, and the earlier portion of the demand had been excluded by the Assistant Collector.

Conclusion: The challenge on these grounds failed.

Issue (iii): whether the Assistant Collector could consider fresh valuation points on remand.

Analysis: The remand was for de novo adjudication after notice of the additional points, and the petitioners were given an opportunity to respond. The scope of the inquiry was therefore not confined to the original grounds alone.

Conclusion: The Assistant Collector was entitled to consider the fresh points.

Issue (iv): whether post-manufacturing charges were includible in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The charges claimed as post-manufacturing expenses were not supported by material showing that they had actually been incurred, and the petitioners produced no evidence before the authorities despite opportunity. In the absence of proof, the authorities were justified in treating the claimed amounts as part of the assessable value and in restoring the Assistant Collector's order.

Conclusion: The post-manufacturing charges were properly brought into the assessable value, and the revisional order was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and revisional orders were upheld in full, and the writ petition failed on all substantial grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: In excise valuation, charges claimed as post-manufacturing expenses are not excluded from assessable value unless the assessee produces material proving that such expenses were actually incurred and are properly separable from the factory-gate price.

---