Limitation and factory-gate valuation principles govern duty demands on after-sale service and delivery charges.

A duty demand on after-sale service charges was held unsustainable because the relevant facts had already been disclosed, earlier orders on the same price-lists had attained finality, and suppression could not be invoked to extend limitation. The attempt to reopen the matter was therefore rejected, and the demand on that component was set aside. On valuation, delivery, forwarding and handling charges were includible only to the extent they were incurred up to the factory gate; charges incurred after removal were excluded. As the record lacked a proper breakup, the assessable value had to be recomputed on the factory-gate basis, with duty payable only on the amount so determined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the duty demand on after-sale service charges was barred by limitation and unsupported by any valid allegation of suppression of facts; (ii) whether delivery charges and forwarding and handling charges were includible in the assessable value, and if so, to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether the duty demand on after-sale service charges was barred by limitation and unsupported by any valid allegation of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period and could survive only if the extended period was available on the basis of suppression. The relevant facts regarding the after-sale service charges had already been disclosed to the department, and earlier orders on the same price-lists for the same period had attained finality. The later attempt to reopen the issue on the allegation of suppression was not sustainable. The provisional assessment plea also failed for the relevant period because the statutory bond under Rule 9-B was executed only later, and the notice was incompetent in any event as the authority lacked jurisdiction to review the earlier order.

Conclusion: The demand relating to after-sale service charges was not maintainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether delivery charges and forwarding and handling charges were includible in the assessable value, and if so, to what extent.

Analysis: Only those charges incurred up to the factory gate were includible in the assessable value; charges incurred after removal from the factory gate were not includible. Since the record did not contain a break-up of the charges, the matter required fresh determination on the basis of the extent to which the charges were incurred up to the factory gate and any excess recovered from customers over actual expenditure.

Conclusion: The assessable value had to be recomputed on the stated basis, and duty was payable only to the extent so determined.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the limitation and suppression issue for after-sale service charges, while the valuation dispute on delivery and forwarding charges was sent back for recomputation in accordance with the factory-gate principle.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand cannot be sustained by invoking suppression where the material facts were already disclosed and earlier final orders on the same period and price-lists existed; in valuation, only charges attributable to movement up to the factory gate form part of assessable value.

---