TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Lead Acid Batteries supplied with the UPS system were optional accessories or an essential component, and whether their value was includible in the assessable value of the UPS system; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was invocable; (iii) Whether interest under Section 11AB was payable for the relevant period; and (iv) Whether penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q was legally sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the Lead Acid Batteries supplied with the UPS system were optional accessories or an essential component, and whether their value was includible in the assessable value of the UPS system.
Analysis: The supply documents showed that batteries were cleared along with each UPS system. On that basis, the supply was not optional. The batteries formed a component of the UPS system and were treated as essential for its functioning. The plea that the batteries were merely bought-out accessories was not accepted on the evidence.
Conclusion: Decided against the assessee. The batteries were held to be part of the UPS system and their value was includible.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was invocable.
Analysis: The show cause notice expressly alleged non-inclusion of battery value in the assessable value with intent to evade duty and specifically invoked the extended period. The ingredients of suppression and misstatement were found to be clearly set out, so the notice satisfied the legal requirement for invocation of the extended period.
Conclusion: Decided against the assessee. The demand was held not to be hit by limitation.
Issue (iii): Whether interest under Section 11AB was payable for the relevant period.
Analysis: The demand related to a period prior to the commencement of the interest provision. Since the statutory levy of interest came into force only later, it could not be applied to the period in dispute.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee. Interest was held not payable.
Issue (iv): Whether penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q was legally sustainable.
Analysis: Section 11AC was not in force during the relevant period of duty demand. In addition, the penalty order did not apportion the amount between Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. On that ground, the penalty could not be sustained.
Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee. The penalty was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The demand of duty was upheld, but the levy of interest and the penalty were not sustained, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory demand notice can validly invoke the extended period when it expressly pleads suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty, but interest or penalty cannot be imposed for a period to which the governing levy provision had not yet come into force.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
