Assessable value and jurisdiction: PP Caps supplied with containers were includible, and suppression allegations did not oust competence.

A reference to suppression of facts in a Section 11A notice does not by itself divest the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of jurisdiction to adjudicate the demand. In valuation, the cost of PP Caps supplied with metal containers and usable only with those containers is includible in the assessable value because the caps are intended for use with the cleared goods and form part of their excisable value. The stated ratio is that items supplied along with excisable goods, where they are meant to be used only with those goods, are part of assessable value, and the notice's suppression allegation does not invalidate the adjudicating authority's competence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice on the ground that suppression of facts was alleged under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the cost of PP Caps supplied along with the metal containers was includible in the assessable value of the metal containers.

Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice on the ground that suppression of facts was alleged under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority was not affected merely because the notice referred to suppression of facts. The demand was proposed within the statutory framework, and the reference to suppression did not oust the competence of the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction was rejected and the adjudicating authority was held competent.

Issue (ii): Whether the cost of PP Caps supplied along with the metal containers was includible in the assessable value of the metal containers.

Analysis: The PP Caps were supplied along with the metal containers and were usable only with those containers. They were intended to be used with the goods cleared to the buyer, and the cost of such caps therefore formed part of the value of the containers for excise assessment.

Conclusion: The cost of PP Caps was held includible in the assessable value of the metal containers.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the jurisdictional objection and the valuation issue, and the demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Items supplied along with excisable goods and intended for use only with those goods are includible in assessable value, and a reference to suppression of facts in the notice does not by itself divest the adjudicating authority of jurisdiction.

---