Appeals partly allowed, demand set aside, penalties removed. Revenue appeal partly sustained. Confiscation and fines not upheld.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the demand beyond the normal period and all penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeal by the revenue was partly allowed, sustaining the demand of duty and interest within the normal period. The confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties were not upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Determination of the correct assessable value of excisable goods.
2. Applicability of Rule 8 versus Rule 11 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.
3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for demand.
4. Imposition of penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Rule 25, and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the correct assessable value of excisable goods:
The Commissioner held that the value of excisable goods cleared to their depot should be determined by applying Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, on a pro-rata basis of the total sale price of the kits. The goods were sold from the depot without any manufacturing activity, and the value should not be based on Rule 8 as the goods were not used in the production or manufacture of other articles.

2. Applicability of Rule 8 versus Rule 11 read with Rule 7:
The appellants argued that Rule 8 should apply as the goods were used in the production of cable jointing kits. However, the Commissioner found that the goods were sold in their original condition along with bought-out items, and no manufacturing process was carried out at the depot. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that Rule 8 was not applicable as the goods were not consumed in the production of other articles. Instead, Rule 11 read with Rule 7 was applicable, and the value should be based on the sale price from the depot, excluding the cost of bought-out items.

3. Invocation of the extended period of limitation for demand:
The Commissioner invoked the extended period of limitation, stating that the appellants misdeclared the removal of goods under the guise of captive consumption. However, the Tribunal found that the facts were known to the revenue since 1993, and the appellants had corresponded with the department regarding their activities. Therefore, the invocation of the extended period of limitation was not justified, and the demand beyond the normal period was set aside.

4. Imposition of penalties under Section 11AC, Rule 25, and Rule 26:
The Commissioner imposed penalties on the appellants under Section 11AC and Rule 25 for willfully undervaluing the goods to evade duty. A penalty was also imposed on a senior manager under Rule 26. The Tribunal set aside the penalties, stating that the issue involved interpretation of provisions and the appellants' actions were based on a long-standing practice. The penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 25 were not sustained, and the penalty on the senior manager was also set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, setting aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and all penalties. The appeal filed by the revenue was partly allowed to the extent of sustaining the demand of duty and interest within the normal period of limitation. The confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalties by the adjudicating authority were not sustained.

---