Assessable value includes cap cost and fitting charges where components form part of the finished excisable product.

A manufacturer clearing aluminium collapsible tubes after changing its valuation basis without disclosure to the department had the value of plastic caps and the labour charges for fixing them included in assessable value, because the caps formed part of the finished marketable tubes and had earlier been valued as such. On Section 4 principles, the Tribunal majority treated both the cap value and fitting charges as part of the assessable value. The majority also held that non-disclosure of the revised practice amounted to suppression of facts, so the extended limitation period under Section 11A was rightly invoked and the duty demand sustained, with only the penalty reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the value of the plastic caps and the labour charges for fixing them on aluminium collapsible tubes were includible in the assessable value of the tubes; (ii) whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period on the ground of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): whether the value of the plastic caps and the labour charges for fixing them on aluminium collapsible tubes were includible in the assessable value of the tubes.

Analysis: The majority held that the caps were not merely incidental but formed part of the finished marketable tube as cleared by the assessee, and that the assessee had itself earlier included the cap value and fitting charges in the assessable value. On the valuation principles under Section 4, the majority treated the cost of the caps and the fitting charges as forming part of the assessable value.

Conclusion: The value of the plastic caps and the labour charges for fixing them were held to be includible in the assessable value.

Issue (ii): whether the demand could be sustained for the extended period on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The majority found that after 1-4-1990 the assessee changed its practice without intimation to the department and did not disclose the non-inclusion of cap value and fitting charges in the assessable value. On that basis, the ingredients for invoking the extended period under Section 11A were treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The extended period was held to be rightly invoked and the demand was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the majority view of the Tribunal, which upheld duty liability on the revised valuation basis and rejected the limitation challenge, resulting in affirmation of the demand with only a reduction in penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a manufacturer clears the excisable product after altering the valuation basis without disclosure to the department, the cost of components and fitting charges that form part of the cleared product may be included in assessable value, and suppression justifies invocation of the extended limitation period.

---