ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. In this case a differential duty demand of Rs. 3,20,319.11 has been confirmed on testing charges recovered from customers during the period from 15-12-1983 to 7-9-1986 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed on the appellants, who are manufacturers of transmission towers falling under CET sub-heading No. 7308.90. The appellants’ assailed the order both on merits as well as on the non-applicability of the extended period of limitation.
2. Since the appellants have asked for the decision on merits, we have gone through the written submissions filed by them, heard Shri K. Srivastava, SDR and perused the records.
3. We find that in the assessee’s own case by Final Order No. E/141 /91-Bl, dated 8-7-1991, it has been held that charges on account of test charges recovered by the appellants from the customers in terms of a contract forms part of assessable value of the goods covered by the contract. The ratio of the above mentioned order is directly applicable to the present ease and hence, we hold that the testing charges form part of assessable value of the transmission line towers. However, in the same order, the Tribunal has held that the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Deptt since the Audit parties of the Accountant General were periodically visiting the appellants’ factory and the appellants have stated that Central Excise Officers were also paying periodic visits to the factory for inspection and since contracts entered into by the appellant made a clear mention of the test charges that were recoverable from the customer and such contracts must have been inspected by the visiting Central Excise Officers and the Audit parties. In the case before us the appellants have taken a stand from the beginning that contracts entered into between them mentioned recovery of test charges from customers. Therefore, the basis of the Tribunal’s earlier order would be applicable to this case. Following the ratio of the Tribunal’s order as contained in para 10 thereof, we hold that the appellants are not guilty of suppression of recovery of testing charges. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not attracted. In the result, while holding that testing charges form part of the assessable value of the transmission towers, we hold that the present dernand is barred by limitation. The demand is thus set aside as time barred. The penalty is also set aside. Ordered accordingly.