ORDER
K. Sankararaman, Member (T)
1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of water meter and supplying to customers in the State of Uttar Pradesh where their factory is situated as well as to other customers in other states. As far as supplies made to their home state is concerned, they are required to get the meters tested by the State Government authorities to have the same stamped under the provisions of the U.P. Waters and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959. For this purpose, the U.P. Government levies, what the appellant has called as tax or fee, a sum of Rs. 5/- per meter. They had not included this amount in the assessable value. Subsequently the Department issued a show cause notice on 17-3-1989 covering the clearances effected during the period March, 1986 to February, 1988. The longer period of limitation was invoked alleging suppression. The impugned order was passed by the Additional Collector confirming the duty demand of Rs. 32,266.35. Aggrieved with the said order appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. Arguing the case of the appellant, Shri T.K. Srivastava, learned Advocate states that the duty demand is barred by limitation as there was no, suppression on their part. They were regularly filing the invoices covering such supplies along with their monthly RT12 return. In the invoices, the fact of collection of the inspection charge @ Rs. 5/- per meter was duly included. Apart from the question of limitation, learned Counsel also contended that the disputed amount was in the nature of a statutory levy by the State Government and as such it was not liable to be included in the assessable value.
3. Resisting the arguments submitted by the learned Counsel, Shri M. Ali, learned Departmental Representative states that the appellant had not disclosed in the price lists the fact that the fee of Rs. 5/- per meter was being collected by them. Since this information was not disclosed in the statutory document submitted by them for approval of the assessable value the same definitely constituted suppression and the longer time limit has been rightly invoked. He also opposes the submission made regarding the non-includibility of the said charge in the assessable value as the same was not in the nature of any tax levied by the State Government. Hence on merits as well as on limitation, he supports impugned order.
3. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the record. The question whether the testing charges collected by the State Government for the purpose of stamping can be excluded from the assessable value is an arguable one. In our view, the appellant was obviously under a bona fide belief that the same was not liable to be included in the assessable value. We also agree with the claim made in support of the appeal that there was no lack of disclosure relevant information to the Department to sustain the charge of suppression because even though the said amount in question had not been mentioned in the price list, the same was indicated in the invoices which have been filed by them along with RT12 returns. In view of this position, we accept the plea of the learned Counsel that the appellant had not committed any act of suppression which would justify the extended period of limitation. We hold that the show cause notice is barred by limitation and the extended period of limitation was not available with the Department in the facts of the case. The order is set aside on this ground and the appeal is allowed.