TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctivity of printing did not convert the basic paper/films/tubings into any other goods, but that the resultant goods continued to fall under the same Tariff Item. On March 16, 1982, the jurisdictional Superintendent wrote a letter to the appellants stating that vide the Finance Bill, 1982, paper and paper-board falling under Tariff Item No. 17(4) attracted duty. The appellants were advised to obtain a licence and to clear the goods on payment of duty after following the procedural formalities. The appellants replied vide their letter dated 30-3-1982 which was duly received by the Department on 31-3-1982. In their reply, the appellants had claimed that their activity was only of printing, that the products of printing industry were wholly exempt under the Notification No. 55/75, dated 1-3-1975 as amended and that in terms of Notification No. 31/76, dated 28-2-1976, they were not required to take out a licence being exempted from licensing control. Thereafter, the appellants did not hear from the Department and continued their activity. Later on, on their own volition, they applied for a licence on 14-6-1989. In this letter, they declared that they were printing the polyester films e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner in the impugned Order dated 2-4-1990 issued on 21-9-1990, which forms the subject matter of the second appeal bearing No. E(SB)4009/93. 7. Shri Bajoria, learned Senior Advocate claimed that the demand was hit by limitation. Although the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner and although it made the allegation that the extended period was invoked on account of suppression of facts of manufacture of the contested goods, it was his plea that there was no suppression and the fact of manufacture of the contested goods was known to the Department even in the year 1982. 8. Shri T. Prem Kumar, learned SDR for the Revenue reiterated the Commissioner s observation on this very plea being made before him in the proceedings, to state that the burden was cast upon the assessees to make the declarations especially when the Tariff was changed and in the absence of any fresh declaration must be taken to be suppression of relevant facts. 9. We have seen the documents referred to in the narration of facts. In a letter dated 30-3-1982, the assessees had written to the Department stating their case that their activity of printing did not result in the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner is that in the year, 1986 when the new tariff was adopted, it was the responsibility of the assessees that they should have taken the licence. It was his specific observation that the laminated sheets and pouches became dutiable from 28-2-1986. He has brushed aside the defence observation that there was an overall confusion as to the dutiability of such goods as was apparent from the Telex of the Board dated 7-8-1987. 12. The documents placed on record by the assessees do indicate that there was considerable doubt as to the classification of the contested goods namely both the printed laminated sheets and the pouches made therefrom. In the new tariff, Section Note (2) to Section VII specified that except for the goods falling under Heading 39.18 or 39.19, plastic and the articles thereof, when printed, would fall under Chapter 49. However, Heading No. 49.01 as it then stood, covered the products of Paper Printing Industry (emphasis supplied). As the learned Advocate suggested that until the amendment of Chapter 49 in the Budget, 1988 whereby the word-"paper"-was removed from the tariff entry for heading 49.01, the printed sheets and pouches were not at all covered under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding it is not different than what is explained in various dictionaries unless of course the context in which it has been used indicates otherwise. A perusal of the proviso indicates that it has been used in company of such strong words as fraud, collusion or wilful default. In fact it is the mildest expression used in the proviso. Yet the surroundings in which it has been used it has to be construed strictly. It does not mean any omission. The act must be deliberate. In taxation, it can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape from payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression. 16. As regards the repeated observations made by the learned SDR that at all times and at the time of change in the tariff, the assessees were under the obligation to declare the facts, the observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Lubri-Chem Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) read as follows : 6. ......... In Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
