Cum-duty valuation and show cause limits govern duty assessment; excess confirmation beyond notice was set aside.

Cum-duty price abatements must be deducted when working back assessable value, even where duty was not separately paid, and the Revenue's challenge on valuation failed. Clearances of a new unit were clubbed with the appellant's clearances because the unit lacked independent existence on the facts found, and extended limitation applied where suppression or withheld information was established. Duty and penalty, however, could not be confirmed beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice; excess confirmation was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination within the notice limits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether abatement from cum-duty price was admissible while determining assessable value for clearances made without payment of duty. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the clearances of the new unit could be clubbed with the appellant's clearances on the facts found. (iii) Whether the adjudicating authority could confirm duty and penalty in excess of the amount proposed in the show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether abatement from cum-duty price was admissible while determining assessable value for clearances made without payment of duty.

Analysis: The assessment of value was held to be governed by the principle that where invoices reflect a cum-duty price, the assessable value must be worked back after granting statutory abatement. The issue was treated as settled by the Larger Bench view that Section 4(4)(d)(ii) requires deduction of duty element even where clearances were made without separate payment of duty.

Conclusion: Abatement from cum-duty price was rightly allowed, and the Revenue's challenge on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and whether the clearances of the new unit could be clubbed with the appellant's clearances on the facts found.

Analysis: The factual finding was that the new unit had no independent factory existence, used the appellant's sales tax registration and invoices, and functioned from the same premises with the appellant's machinery and labour. On limitation, it was held that where suppression or withheld information is found, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A applies and a notice may be issued within five years.

Conclusion: The clearances were correctly clubbed, and the plea of limitation failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the adjudicating authority could confirm duty and penalty in excess of the amount proposed in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The notice quantified the demand at a specific figure, but the adjudication confirmed a substantially higher amount. It was held that the adjudicating authority could not enhance the liability beyond what was proposed in the notice, and the correct duty and corresponding penalty required fresh determination after hearing the assessee.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for re-determination of duty and penalty within the limits of the show cause notice.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed, the assessee's substantive challenges on merits and limitation failed, but the assessment and penalty were set aside for limited reconsideration on the ground of excess confirmation beyond the show cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Duty cannot be confirmed in excess of the demand proposed in the show cause notice, and cum-duty price abatements and extended limitation under the Central Excise regime apply according to the settled statutory principles when the factual conditions are satisfied.

---