Extended limitation and valuation fail where suppression is unproven and technical know-how consideration cannot be attributed to goods cleared.

Extended limitation under excise law requires proof of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty; where declarations on price reduction and the manufacturing agreement were already filed, the extended period and related penalty could not be sustained. Valuation of goods also could not include the entire consideration for transfer of technical know-how where the know-how covered more brands than the manufacturing agreement and no workable mechanism existed to attribute that amount to the goods cleared. The demand and penalties were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty and, consequently, the penalty could be sustained. (ii) Whether the amount received for transfer of technical know-how could be entirely treated as additional consideration for the goods cleared and added to assessable value in the absence of a workable valuation mechanism.

Issue (i): Whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty and, consequently, the penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The declarations regarding price reduction and the manufacturing agreement had been filed before the department. On those facts, suppression with intent to evade duty was not established. The extended period therefore could not be invoked, and the foundation for the penalty also failed.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the amount received for transfer of technical know-how could be entirely treated as additional consideration for the goods cleared and added to assessable value in the absence of a workable valuation mechanism.

Analysis: The technical know-how related to 56 brands, whereas the manufacturing agreement covered only 6 brands. The entire amount of Rs. 50,00,000 could not be attributed to the goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee. In the absence of any proper mechanism to attribute the value of the know-how to the goods cleared, and since the amount was not shown to be free supply or additional consideration in the manner alleged, the demand could not be sustained under the valuation rules.

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

Final Conclusion: The demand and penalties were unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Extended limitation requires proof of suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, and a demand based on valuation must fail where there is no legally workable mechanism to attribute the alleged additional consideration to the goods cleared.

---