After-sales service charges and extended limitation required fresh consideration where optional second-year service was not adequately proved.

After-sales service charges collected over and above the declared price were not supported by adequate material showing that second-year service was truly optional, so the demand could not be dropped on merits without further proof. The declaration that first-year service was free did not disclose the alleged factual position that second-year service was offered only as an option for a charge, so the finding that the extended limitation period was unavailable was made without proper consideration of the relevant facts. The order dropping the demand was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the respondent and allowing necessary documents.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether after-sales service charges collected over and above the declared price could be accepted on merits without adequate material showing that second-year service was optional; (ii) whether the question of limitation and availability of the extended period had been properly considered.

Issue (i): Whether after-sales service charges collected over and above the declared price could be accepted on merits without adequate material showing that second-year service was optional.

Analysis: The respondent's case of optional second-year service was not supported by records or other material showing that such service was availed only by some buyers. The declared price lists did not, by themselves, establish that the extra amounts collected represented optional services in the manner claimed. In the absence of such supporting evidence, the demand could not have been dropped on merits.

Conclusion: This issue was not proved in favour of the respondent, and the merits required reconsideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the question of limitation and availability of the extended period had been properly considered.

Analysis: The declaration in the classification lists and price lists that first-year service was free did not amount to disclosure of the alleged factual position that second-year service was offered only optionally for a charge. On that basis, the finding that extended limitation was unavailable was recorded without proper consideration of the relevant facts.

Conclusion: The limitation aspect was wrongly decided and had to be reconsidered.

Final Conclusion: The order dropping the demand was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the respondent and permitting production of necessary documents.

---