Depot valuation and limitation in central excise: valuation objection failed, but an unexplained delay made the demand time-barred.

Goods cleared to an assessee's own depots and sold onward at a higher price were not valued on the basis of factory-gate duty alone, because no provisional assessment was sought under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000; the valuation objection therefore failed on merits. The demand was nevertheless set aside as time-barred, since the Department relied on balance sheet figures and ER-1 returns already available on record, the relevant balance sheet had been furnished on 10.05.2006, and the show cause notice was issued only on 29.04.2008 without justification for invoking the extended period. The appeal succeeded on limitation despite the adverse finding on valuation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessable value of goods cleared to own depots was required to be determined on the basis of depot sale price in the absence of provisional assessment; and (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the assessable value of goods cleared to own depots was required to be determined on the basis of depot sale price in the absence of provisional assessment.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly cleared to the appellant's own depots and sold onward to ultimate customers at a higher value. The appellant had not sought provisional assessment under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. In these circumstances, the plea that duty paid at the factory gate alone should govern the final valuation was not accepted.

Conclusion: The challenge on merits failed and the valuation objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand was founded on balance sheet figures and monthly ER-1 returns, and the relevant balance sheet had been furnished to the Department on 10.05.2006. The show cause notice was issued only on 29.04.2008, and no justification for the delay was shown. The invocation of the extended period was therefore not sustained.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be time-barred and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the demand could not survive the limitation objection, even though the merits challenge to valuation was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department has all relevant records and issues a show cause notice after an unexplained delay, the demand cannot be sustained on limitation, notwithstanding an adverse view on valuation merits.

---