Assessable value cannot include non-essential bought-out items; extended limitation fails in a bona fide interpretative dispute.

Bought-out items such as hoods, chimneys, ovens, microwaves and fittings supplied from the head office and installed at customer sites were held not includible in the assessable value of modular kitchen systems where they were not shown to be manufactured by the assessee or to be essential parts of the excisable goods. The extended period of limitation was also found unavailable because the assessee was registered, regularly filing returns, and the dispute arose from an interpretative issue rather than suppression or wilful intent to evade duty. On both merits and limitation, the demand failed and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of bought-out items supplied by the head office and installed along with the modular kitchen systems was includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods. (ii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the value of bought-out items supplied by the head office and installed along with the modular kitchen systems was includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods.

Analysis: The value addition was sought in respect of kitchen hoods, chimneys, ovens, microwaves and fittings procured from outside and supplied directly to the customer site. The reasoning accepted that these items were not manufactured by the appellant and were not shown to be essential parts of the modular kitchen systems. It was also noticed that the Revenue did not first establish the classification or excisability of the assembled system at the customer's premises, even though the dispute ultimately turned on whether the installed arrangement could be treated as excisable goods. In that situation, the inclusion of the value of such bought-out items in the assessable value of the manufactured products was held unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the demand on merits failed.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant was a registered, regular duty-paying unit filing returns from time to time, and the dispute arose from audit scrutiny. The decision treated the matter as one involving interpretation of law rather than concealment or wilful suppression. On those facts, the ingredients necessary for invoking the extended period were held absent.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held not invocable and the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on both merits and limitation, with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Bought-out items not shown to be essential parts of the manufactured product cannot be included in assessable value, and the extended period cannot be invoked in a bona fide interpretative dispute absent suppression or intent to evade.

---