Factory handling charges form part of assessable value when incurred before removal, and nondisclosure can justify extended limitation.

Cylinder handling charges for unloading, stacking and loading within the factory were treated as part of the assessable value of oxygen gas for central excise because the charges were incurred before removal and were connected with packing and dispatch, while post-clearance delivery or collection charges would be excluded. The longer limitation period was also upheld because the price list disclosed only the ex-factory price and did not reveal that handling charges were separately recovered; the omission from the filed agreement and the discovery through debit notes and private records amounted to suppression of material facts. The demand and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cylinder handling charges for unloading, stacking, and loading were includible in the assessable value of oxygen gas for central excise purposes; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of material facts.

Issue (i): Whether cylinder handling charges for unloading, stacking, and loading were includible in the assessable value of oxygen gas for central excise purposes.

Analysis: The disputed charges were not confined to post-clearance delivery or collection activities. They included unloading of cylinders brought into the factory, stacking within the factory, and loading of cylinders for outward movement. Charges incurred before the goods were removed from the factory gate and connected with the packing and movement of the filled cylinders were treated as part of the assessable value. The authorities relied on the principle that loading charges within the factory form part of value, while delivery or collection charges after removal are excluded.

Conclusion: The handling charges were correctly included in the assessable value, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the ground of suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The price list declared only the ex-factory price and did not disclose that the stated price included the handling charges. The agreement filed with the price list also did not mention the separate recovery of those charges. The recovery was discovered only from debit notes and private records during scrutiny. On these facts, non-disclosure of the handling charges amounted to suppression of material facts, justifying invocation of the longer limitation period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both merits and limitation, and the demand and penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Charges incurred within the factory before removal of the goods, including unloading, stacking, and loading connected with packing and dispatch, form part of the assessable value, and non-disclosure of such recoveries in the price list constitutes suppression justifying the extended limitation period.

---