Valuation of retail price discount and limitation: disclosed price lists defeated extended period, supporting interim relief.

Special excise duty was treated as part of the excise burden relevant to computing the discount from maximum retail price under the price-list valuation notification, and the point was considered arguable in favour of the assessee for interim relief. The demand was treated as time-barred because the price lists disclosed the valuation basis and the record did not support suppression or wilful misstatement; the extended period was therefore not available. On that footing, stay and waiver of recovery were granted as the merits were arguable and limitation favoured the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, for valuation under the notification governing the price list, the assessee was entitled to deduct special excise duty in computing the discount from the maximum retail price; and (ii) whether the demand was hit by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Issue (i): whether, for valuation under the notification governing the price list, the assessee was entitled to deduct special excise duty in computing the discount from the maximum retail price.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the manner of arriving at assessable value under the notification. The assessee's position was that the deduction contemplated was from the retail price after excluding excise duty payable, and that such duty included the special excise duty as well. On the facts recorded, the issue was treated as arguable in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The issue was held to be arguable in favour of the assessee for purposes of interim relief.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was hit by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The notice covered a past period while the price lists on record disclosed the basis on which the assessable value was worked out. In that background, the objection was treated as belated and the material recorded did not justify alleging suppression or wilful mis-statement for extending limitation.

Conclusion: The demand was treated as time-barred and the extended period was not accepted.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted by allowing stay and waiver of recovery, since the merits were considered arguable and the demand was regarded as barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the valuation basis is disclosed in the price lists and no suppression or wilful mis-statement is apparent, the extended period of limitation is not attracted; in such circumstances, interim protection may be granted where the merits are also arguable.

---