Excisable goods count in exemption turnover computation, even when temporarily exempt, and valuation deductions need proof.

Exempted goods remained excisable for computing the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 80/80-C.E., so the manufacturer could not claim the small-scale exemption after crossing the prescribed threshold; parts of weigh bridges were also includible in the aggregate. Packing and handling charges, supervision and erection charges, cancelled bills, and duty-paid components were not proved deductible from the clearance value. The demand was held within limitation because the declaration disclosed the clearances and notice issued within six months. The duty demand did not survive against the seized goods, which stood released. Penalty was sustainable in principle, but it was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2,000.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. for clearances in excess of the prescribed limits, including the question whether exempted goods and parts of weigh bridges were to be counted in the aggregate value of clearances; (ii) whether packing and handling charges, supervision and erection charges, cancelled bills, and the value of duty-paid components were deductible from the aggregate value; (iii) whether the demand was barred by limitation; (iv) whether the seized goods were liable to duty in the manner demanded; and (v) whether the penalty was sustainable in full.

Issue (i): whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 80/80-C.E. for clearances in excess of the prescribed limits, including the question whether exempted goods and parts of weigh bridges were to be counted in the aggregate value of clearances.

Analysis: Notification No. 80/80-C.E. granted exemption only up to the prescribed aggregate value and denied the benefit where the manufacturer had crossed the specified threshold in the preceding year. Goods continued to be excisable goods even if exempted for the time being, and therefore their value could be included for computing the aggregate value of clearances. Parts of weigh bridges were treated as separately excisable goods and the exemption under Notification No. 310/77-C.E. applied only in the limited situation contemplated by that notification. The appellants' clearances, on their own declaration, crossed the relevant limits.

Conclusion: the appellants were not entitled to the claimed exemption, and the inclusion of exempted goods and parts of weigh bridges in the aggregate computation was justified.

Issue (ii): whether packing and handling charges, supervision and erection charges, cancelled bills, and the value of duty-paid components were deductible from the aggregate value.

Analysis: Deductions were claimed only after the declaration had been filed, and no evidence showed that such deductions had been claimed, approved, or supported by contemporaneous material. Packing and handling charges incurred up to the factory gate were includible in the value. Supervision and erection charges were not shown by any contract or evidence to be separate and excludible. The plea regarding cancelled bills and duty-paid components also failed for want of proof that the corresponding goods had not been removed or that the value was outside the assessable base.

Conclusion: no further deduction was allowable from the aggregate value of clearances.

Issue (iii): whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The declaration itself disclosed the clearances, the notice followed within six months of the declaration, and the case did not rest on mere inaction but on removal without payment of duty despite the inapplicability of the claimed exemption. On these facts, the notice was held to be within time.

Conclusion: the demand was not time-barred.

Issue (iv): whether the seized goods were liable to duty in the manner demanded.

Analysis: The adjudication order confirmed duty on clearances made without payment of duty, and the seized goods were not equated with such clearances. On the reasoning adopted, the duty element relatable to the seized goods was not included in the confirmed demand, and the seized goods were therefore treated as released under the order.

Conclusion: the duty demand did not survive as against the seized goods, and they stood released.

Issue (v): whether the penalty was sustainable in full.

Analysis: The penalty was imposed under Rule 173Q although the show cause notice referred to other penal rules. While the authority had power to impose penalty under Rule 173Q, the record justified only a reduced penalty in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: the penalty was upheld in principle but reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 2,000.

Final Conclusion: the duty demand and rejection of exemption were sustained, the objections to valuation and limitation failed, the seized goods were treated as released, and only the quantum of penalty was reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: goods remain excisable for purposes of exemption computation even when exempted from duty for the time being, and values of clearances may be computed on that basis where the notification so requires.

---