TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the value of printers, plotters and UPS supplied with computers could be included in the assessable value of the computers; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable in relation to the duty demand; (iii) Whether the sale price of the computers had to be treated as cum-duty price for recomputation of duty and allied penalty; and (iv) Whether interest under Section 11AB was recoverable for the period prior to 26-9-1996.
Issue (i): Whether the value of printers, plotters and UPS supplied with computers could be included in the assessable value of the computers.
Analysis: The peripherals supplied with the computers were not shown to be essential parts of the computer system. The reasoning applied was that only items forming an essential component of the computer could be included in its assessable value, while bought-out peripherals, even if supplied together as a unit, could not be added merely on that basis.
Conclusion: The value of the peripherals was excluded from the assessable value, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable in relation to the duty demand.
Analysis: The explanation of bona fide belief was rejected. The limitation plea regarding clearances of the earlier period was also rejected because the relevant date for limitation was taken as the date of filing of the return, not merely the date of clearance, and the notice covered the relevant span on that basis.
Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held applicable, against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the sale price of the computers had to be treated as cum-duty price for recomputation of duty and allied penalty.
Analysis: The price realised on sale was required to be adjusted to reflect duty elements in computing the assessable value and duty liability. The duty computation was directed to be redone on that basis, and the penalty was to be re-determined accordingly.
Conclusion: The duty was required to be recomputed on cum-duty basis, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iv): Whether interest under Section 11AB was recoverable for the period prior to 26-9-1996.
Analysis: Interest under Section 11AB was held to be unavailable for any period before its commencement date, and the disputed clearances fell in a period anterior to that date.
Conclusion: Interest under Section 11AB was not recoverable for the pre-26-9-1996 period, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The matter was disposed of by excluding peripheral items from valuation, sustaining the limitation objection, directing recomputation of duty on a cum-duty basis, and holding that interest under Section 11AB could not be charged for the earlier period, while a separate connected appeal was not entertainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Non-essential bought-out peripherals supplied with a computer are not includible in its assessable value, sale proceeds may require cum-duty recomputation, and interest cannot be levied for a period prior to the statutory commencement of the charging provision.
TaxTMI 
