Free-supplied inputs count in excise valuation; suppression triggers extended limitation, but later penalty and interest provisions cannot apply retrospectively.

In central excise valuation, the value of pig iron supplied free of cost by the buyer was includible in the assessable value of the manufactured goods, because free supply forming part of the final product remained relevant to valuation. Non-disclosure of such free supplies and a declaration that no additional consideration flowed from the buyer constituted suppression of material facts, so the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A applied and the demand was not time-barred. Penalty under Section 11AC and the interest demand were nevertheless unsustainable for the period in dispute, as the relevant provisions were not in force, while the separate Rule 173Q penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of pig iron supplied free of cost by the buyer was includible in the assessable value of the manufactured goods; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation or attracted the extended period on account of suppression of facts; (iii) Whether penalty under Section 11AC and interest were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the value of pig iron supplied free of cost by the buyer was includible in the assessable value of the manufactured goods.

Analysis: The assessable value had to be determined on the value of the final excisable product, and the fact that a component was supplied free by the buyer did not prevent its value from being added where it formed part of the manufactured goods. The free supply of pig iron was therefore relevant to valuation.

Conclusion: The value of the free supply of pig iron was includible in the assessable value, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation or attracted the extended period on account of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee had not disclosed the receipt of free supplies to the Revenue and had issued a declaration stating that no additional consideration flowed from the buyer. This amounted to suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty, bringing the case within the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A.

Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred and the extended period was rightly invoked, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under Section 11AC and interest were sustainable.

Analysis: Section 11AC was inserted only from 1996, while the duty period in dispute was April to June 1994, so the statutory basis for that penalty was absent. The demand for interest was also unsustainable because the relevant interest provision came into force only from 1995.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 11AC and the interest demand were unsustainable and were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the separate penalty under Rule 173Q were sustained, but the penalty under Section 11AC and the interest demand were deleted, resulting in only partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In central excise valuation, the value of free supplies forming part of the manufactured goods is includible in assessable value, and nondisclosure of such material facts justifies invocation of the extended limitation period; however, a penalty provision cannot be applied retrospectively without statutory authority.

---