Full Judgment
3. It all happened in 1993 when the officers visited the respondents premises where he was manufacturing pipes and structures for MCGH on job work basis. A verification of the value declared indicated that the respondents had not correctly declared the assessable value of the goods cleared by him. for one thing he has adopted the price prevailing in 1986 for M.S. Sheets supplied to him by MCGH while clearing the pipes much later thereby failing to compute the assessable value correctly. For another he has not disclosed the correct transportation cost incurred on the M.S. Plates when he collected them from the cite nominated by MCGH. In fact under a price variation clause the respondent collected extra amounts to the tune of Rs. 61,58,704/- from MCGH and this amount form part of the assessable value of the pipes and structures. The Revenue contended that this nondisclosure of this extra amount, amounts to suppression.
4. The Commissioner ruled that the charge of suppression is unsustainable as the respondents disclosed all the material particulars filing the price lists supported by the contract copies entered into with MCGH. The price lists were approved and RT 12s were assessed finally during the period December 1990 to March 1992. The Commissioner held that there was no suppression on the part of the respondents therefore larger period of limitation cannot be invoked. The show cause notice itself was issued on 1.1.1996.
5. The Revenues contention is that the larger period of limitation is invokable in this case as the respondent suppressed the fact that they collected extra amounts which have a bearing on the assessable value of the goods. The Department finalized the assessments on the basis of information supplied by the assessee. He failed to declare to the department that he collected extra amounts from the principal in connection with the manufacture of excisable goods. The second ground of the Revenue is that the respondent while calculating the cost of raw material (M.S. Plates) which has gone into the manufacture of M.S.Pipes adopted the price prevailing in 86-87 and he has not disclosed this fact to the department. The short levy occurred due to incorrect adoption of cost of raw material, incorrect transportation cost and suppression of the fact that the respondent collected extra amount from MCGH.7. The Commissioner while coming to the conclusion that there is no suppression on the part of the respondents has not dealt with the allegation that an extra amount of Rs. 61,58,704/- was collected by the respondent from MCGH under price variation clause of the contract and that fact has not been disclosed. The fact that extra sums has been collected is within the exclusive knowledge of the respondent. If he has not disclosed it the charge of suppression can be made against him.
The Commissioner's finding that there was no suppression on the part of the respondent therefore is not correct.
8. Having said that we also observe that the extra amount collected appeared to relate to transportation charges incurred by the respondent. The Commissioner has not given any finding whether the amount can be added to the assessable value or not.
9. Having regard to the facts of this case we remand the matter back to the Commissioner with specific direction to examine the issue in the light of the fact that over and above the price declared to the department during the relevant period the respondent collect extra sum from his principal and that this fact has not been disclosed. Secondly he shall examine whether this extra amount so collected has a bearing on the assessable value.
10. We allow the appeal of the Revenue, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh. While doing so the Commissioner is required to take into consideration our finding in para 7 of this order.