Extended limitation and captive-consumption valuation: bona fide non-disclosure barred suppression, while comparable-goods method applied for acetaldehyde.

Non-disclosure in a regulatory setting with State Excise control, departmental postings, and prior inspections was treated as consistent with bona fide belief rather than deliberate suppression, so the extended limitation period was not available and the demand remained confined to the normal period with reduced penalty. For valuation of acetaldehyde, captive-consumption exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was unavailable because the goods were cleared to distilleries, not used within the same factory. Rule 6(b)(i) applied on comparable-goods valuation, with adjustment for differences such as purity, and Rule 6(b)(ii) based on cost data was inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period on the allegation of suppression of facts and unauthorized removal, and whether penalty called for interference; (ii) whether the assessable value of acetaldehyde was to be determined under Rule 6(b)(i) on the basis of comparable goods or under Rule 6(b)(ii) on cost data, and whether exemption for captive consumption under Notification No. 118/75 was available.

Issue (i): Whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period on the allegation of suppression of facts and unauthorized removal, and whether penalty called for interference.

Analysis: The factory was under State Excise control, clearances were made under State Excise gate passes, Central Excise officers were posted there, and the record showed prior visits by departmental officers and technical officers. In these circumstances, the non-disclosure of manufacture could not be treated as deliberate and intentional withholding of information. The circumstances supported a bona fide belief that the goods were not exigible, so the extended period was not available.

Conclusion: The longer period under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 could not be invoked. The demand was confined to the normal period, and the penalty was reduced.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessable value of acetaldehyde was to be determined under Rule 6(b)(i) on the basis of comparable goods or under Rule 6(b)(ii) on cost data, and whether exemption for captive consumption under Notification No. 118/75 was available.

Analysis: The exemption for captive consumption was unavailable because the goods were not consumed in the same factory for manufacture of other articles, but were cleared to distilleries. For valuation, Rule 6(b)(i) applied because the rule permits valuation by reference to comparable goods with reasonable adjustment for material differences, including purity. The higher purity of the comparable goods did not take the case out of Rule 6(b)(i); it only required suitable adjustment in assessable value.

Conclusion: Exemption under Notification No. 118/75 was not available, and valuation under Rule 6(b)(i) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975 was . Rule 6(b)(ii) was not applicable.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted on limitation and penalty, while the valuation method based on comparable goods with suitable adjustment for purity was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where non-disclosure occurs in a setting that reasonably supports bona fide belief and regulatory oversight, the extended limitation for duty demand is not attracted; and for captive-clearance valuation, comparable-goods valuation with necessary adjustment for material differences prevails over cost data where comparable goods are available.

---