Excise valuation and limitation: free-supplied materials are includible, but the extended period fails without suppression or intent to evade.

Free-supplied materials form part of the assessable value of the final product under excise valuation principles, so their cost cannot be excluded from assessable value. However, the extended period of limitation was not invocable because the price lists disclosed different values for the same product, the purchase orders showed the materials were to be supplied free by the customer, and suppression or intent to evade duty was not established. Revenue neutrality also negatived deliberate evasion, so the demand was held time-barred and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the value of free-supplied materials was includible in the assessable value of the final product; and (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Issue (i): whether the value of free-supplied materials was includible in the assessable value of the final product.

Analysis: The legal position was treated as settled that the value of items supplied free of cost by the customer forms part of the assessable value of the manufactured product. The Tribunal relied on the governing excise principle that the cost of such free supplies cannot be excluded from valuation.

Conclusion: The value of the free-supplied materials was includible in the assessable value.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.

Analysis: The price lists disclosed two different values for the same product and the purchase orders annexed to them showed that the raw materials were to be supplied free by the customer. In these circumstances, suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty was not established. The Tribunal also accepted the plea that the matter was revenue neutral because duty paid on the higher value would have been available as Modvat credit to the customer, which negatived an inference of deliberate evasion.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and the extended period was not invocable.

Final Conclusion: The valuation principle was decided against the assessee, but the demand failed on limitation, so the impugned order was set aside and relief followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where free-supplied material is includible in assessable value, the extended period cannot be invoked absent suppression or intent to evade, particularly where the disclosed transactions and revenue neutrality negate such intent.

---