Excise valuation and suppression: undisclosed buyer recoveries formed assessable value, and extended limitation was upheld.

For excise valuation, the law in force on the date of the show cause notice was applied, so the retrospective amendment to the valuation provision governed the demand. Amounts recovered from buyers above the concessional duty actually paid were treated as part of assessable value because they represented undisclosed consideration, and approval of the price list did not bar recovery where material facts were withheld. On the same facts, the extended limitation period was upheld because the manufacturer disclosed only the concessional duty paid while suppressing the full effective duty recovered from buyers. The appeals therefore failed on valuation and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended valuation provision could be applied to the show cause notices and whether the extra amount recovered by the manufacturer over and above the concessional duty paid was includible in the assessable value; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked on the basis of suppression.

Issue (i): Whether the amended valuation provision could be applied to the show cause notices and whether the extra amount recovered by the manufacturer over and above the concessional duty paid was includible in the assessable value.

Analysis: The retrospective amendment to the valuation provision was held applicable because the law in force on the date of the show cause notice governed the matter. Approval of the price list did not bar a demand when material facts were not disclosed. The amount collected from buyers in excess of the actual concessional duty paid was treated not as duty but as an element of value, and the absence of an express condition in the exemption notification did not alter that position.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked on the basis of suppression.

Analysis: The notices contained allegations of suppression, and it was found that the manufacturer had disclosed only the concessional duty actually paid while recovering the full effective duty from buyers without disclosure to the department. On those facts, the extended limitation period was held to be properly invoked, and the appellate authority was justified in examining the point even if the original order did not record a separate finding.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the revised valuation, the inclusion of the undisclosed extra recovery in assessable value, and the invocation of the extended limitation period were all upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, the law in force on the date of the show cause notice applies, undisclosed recoveries over and above the actual duty paid form part of assessable value, and deliberate non-disclosure of such recoveries justifies the extended period of limitation.

---