TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1985. Show cause notice dated 3-3-1988 was issued alleging that during the period in question, besides the price collected under the invoices, appellant had collected various amounts by way of charges for design, engineering, transportation and commissioning under separate debit notes which were suppressed from the scrutiny of the Department, that these charges should have been shown in the invoices and would be part of the assessable value and duty should have been paid thereon and proposing demand of differential duty on that basis invoking larger period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Though the appellant resisted the notice on merits and on the ground of limitation, the Collector of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision applies to the facts of the present case. Even in Texmaco Ltd. case if the Railways had not supplied wheel sets free of cost and the appellant was required to buy the same, the invoice price would have been much more than the actual invoice price shown in that case. There cannot be any dispute that the invoice price under Notification No. 120/75 must correspond to the assessable value under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. If the invoice includes certain elements which are deductible for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act, the mere mention of these elements in the invoices will not result in those elements becoming dutiable. Similarly, if the invoice omits certain elements which would otherwise be includible in the assessable value unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excisable goods come into existence at the factory, the charges for transport to, installation and commissioning at the sites of the buyers cannot be regarded as part of the assessable value and duty cannot be demanded thereon. 6. According to the appellant, the show cause notice is barred by time since it was issued on 3-3-1988 in respect of the period from 1-4-1984 to 30-9-1985. The appellant contends that the period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act is not available to the Department, since even in 1984 the Department was aware that the appellant was collecting these charges under separate debit notes. Our attention is invited to letter dated 27-2-1984 of the audit officer to the appellant seeking information ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for declaring the same to the Department, in respect of any period on or after 1-4-1984. We are, therefore, not impressed by the contention that the Department was aware of the state of affairs disclosed in the show cause notice in respect of the period covered by the show cause notice. It is also contended that the appellant was under the bona fide belief that duty was not liable to be paid in respect of these charges. No doubt, non-dutiability has been raised as a ground in the reply to the show cause notice. The show cause notice does not contain any averment that during the period relevant to this case appellant had any such bona fide belief. In these circumstances, the allegation of suppression of facts and collection of dutiable am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
