Excise valuation excludes separate subsidy payments; approved price declarations also block extended limitation without suppression.

Excise valuation under the relevant rules permits addition only of consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer under the sale transaction. A government subsidy paid through the purchaser was treated as a separate support arrangement and not part of the rigs' sale price, so it could not be included in assessable value. The article also notes that where the price list and returns were disclosed and approved, a differential duty demand raised nearly two years later could not invoke the extended limitation period absent proof of suppression. The connected duty demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for differential duty was barred by limitation, and (ii) whether the subsidy/payment routed through the purchaser could be added to the assessable value of the rigs.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for differential duty was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The price list declaring the rig value had been filed and approved by the excise authorities, the returns disclosed the duty liability, and duty was paid on that basis. The later show cause notice seeking differential duty was issued nearly two years after clearance, without substantiating suppression of facts or other grounds to invoke the extended period.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 11A(1) could not be invoked.

Issue (ii): Whether the subsidy/payment routed through the purchaser could be added to the assessable value of the rigs.

Analysis: Under the valuation rule, only additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer can be added to the declared price. The contract fixed the price of the rigs, and the material on record did not show that any extra consideration flowed from the buyer under the contract. The Government subsidy was a separate support arrangement and not part of the sale consideration for the rigs.

Conclusion: The subsidy/payment could not be included in the assessable value, and the differential duty demand on that basis was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the duty demand and connected penalty could not be sustained, and the appellant obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For excise valuation, only consideration flowing from the buyer under the sale transaction can be added to the assessable value, and an approved price list supported by disclosed returns cannot be reopened after delay absent proof justifying the extended limitation period.

---