K.L. Rekhi, Member (T)

1. The common dispute in these three appeals is on determination of the assessable values of the goods manufactured by the appellants, for the charge of Central Excise duty.

2. The appellants manufactured figured and wired glass in the form of glass sheets. The subject of determination of assessable values of their goods has been a matter of controversy almost ever since the inception of their factory in 1964. The factory of the appellants is situated at Bansberia, a mofussil place in the district of Hooghly in West Bengal. This place is about 45 Kms. away from Calcutta city. Calcutta is the nearest wholesale market for the appellants' goods. The present Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which deals with the question of valuation of the excisable goods, came into force w.e.f. 1.10.1975. The appellants followed rather an unusual method of billing their customers. They issued two invoices for each sale, one called the original invoice for that portion of the value which they claimed as the price of the goods themselves and the other called the supplementary invoice for the extra charges on account of special packing, laffa (jam-packing) charges, forwarding charges, cost of transport, breakage risk and miscellaneous charges. In the price-lists, which the appellants filed before the department for approval, they indicated the various heads of the extra charges but not the amounts charged for them. The dispute whether the charges for the extras were includible in the assessable values of the goods or not, relating to the period from 1.10.1975 to July, 1979 went up to the Calcutta High Court in a writ petition filed by the appellants. By the time the Hon'ble High Court delivered its Judgment on the writ petition on 10.7.1985 [MANU/WB/0205/1985 : 1988 (37) ELT 544 (Cal.)], the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Tyres International and Others -1983 ELT 1896 (SC) had become available. The appellants had contended before the High Court that they realised the extra charges only from their outstation buyers and not from their local Calcutta buyers. The Hon'ble High Court held that in principle the extra charges were excludible if they were realised only from outstation buyers. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Assistant Collector to investigate the assertion of the facts made by the appellants and thereafter passed a fresh order in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We were told by the appellants during the hearing that no appeal had been filed by the department against the High Court Judgment dated 10.7.1985.

3. A similar dispute is now before us but it relates to the later period from 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1983. Logically, the basis of valuation as directed by the Hon'ble High Court for the earlier period should, with necessary adjustments, hold good for the later period as well. But we are told that there has so far been no verification of the facts and quantification of the amounts of the deductible items by the Assistant Collector for the earlier period. It appears that while the matter was still under inquiry by the department, the authorities received some information that the appellants were indulging in under valuation of their goods. Acting on the information, the Anti-Evasion staff of the department resumed the relevant records and documents of the appellants for scrutiny. After investigations, the authorities served three show cause notices dated 6.11.1984, 10.12.1984 and 4.3.1985 on the appellants. The show cause notices charged the appellants "with giving false declarations, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts of normal price". We re-produce below certain material allegations from the show cause notice dated 6.11.1984 :

"(a) Principal Raw Material costs are higher than the total assessable value plus the export value in a particular year (which is inclusive of the supplementary invoice charged claimed for deduction home co