Per K. Sankararaman: These appeals involve a common issue and were heard together. This combined order is passed disposing of both the appeals.

2. The appellants manufacture vacuum cleaners. They clear these on payment of duty, to their depots from where they effect their sales. They had declared three items, Hose Pipe, Swivel Brush and Extension Tubes as standard accessories which are cleared from the factory with the vacuum cleaners and included their price in the assessable value of the vacuum cleaners. The department noticed that the appellants were selling their product with a number of other attachments which were described as optional accessories and that the price of these optional accessories was not included in the assessable value declared by them in their price lists. Two show cause notices were issued to them on 2.3.93 and 2.11.93 alleging evasion of Central Excise duty of Rs. 7,31,700/— and Rs. 19,57,677.90 for the periods August 92 to January 93 and February 90 to July 92 respectively. The cases were adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut confirming the duty demands and imposing penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs under orders dated 16.12.93 and 10.5.94 respectively. The present appeals have been filed against these orders.

3. Arguing the case of the appellants, Shri D.B. Shroff, learned Advocate submitted that the vacuum cleaners cleared from their factory with standard accessories are complete articles even without the attachments in question which are optional accessories supplied only where these are required by the customers. These accessories are bought out items not received in the factory at all and are not cleared along with the vacuum cleaners but received and supplied by the depots. The item cleared from their factory is not an incomplete or semi—finished article as held by the Collector. The learned counsel referred to various judgments and orders in support of his contention that the price of the optional accessories which are only extra attachments for additional facilities are not to be treated as component parts and that their price is not to be included in the assessable value of the cleaners. These submissions apart, he contended that the show cause notice was time barred as they had disclosed all the facts. They had also furnished the required information in reply to the questionnaire issued by the department in connection with the price lists filed by them. There was no suppression or misstatement. He relied upon the Tribunal decision in 1992 (58) ELT 76 in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise and the Supreme Court decisions in Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments and Padmini Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (40) ELT 276 = 1989 (21) ECR182 and 1989 (43) ELT 195 = 1989 (25) ECR 289 respectively for his stand against the invoking of the extended period of limitation. They had acted on bonafide and genuine belief. Moreover there was no proposal for penalty in the first show cause notice but still penalty has been imposed. He pleaded that the appeals be allowed.

4. Shri A.K. Singhal rebutted the arguments and supported the impugned orders. He contended that, as held by the Collector, the so called optional accessories had been supplied by the appellants in most of their sales of vacuum cleaners. Merely because they had arranged to supply the said optional accessories from their depots and had not brought them inside their factory, their price cannot be excluded in determining the assessable value of the vacuum cleaners. He relied upon various decisions for pleading that the cost of bought out items in the present case was includible in the assessable value of the vacuum cleaners. The longer period of limitation has been correctly applied, he contended, since there was suppression as the appellants had not mentioned about the optional accessories in their price list. He pleaded that the orders be