TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our notice that on the date of filing of his declaration, two High Courts had taken the view that the goods exempted from duty are not includible within the definition of `excisable goods' as defined in clause (d) of Section 2. No doubt, two other High Courts had taken a contrary view. The appellant's factory is in the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay High Court had not taken a view one way or the other. In the above circumstances and because the facts establish that the mis-statement of facts in the declaration filed by the appellant - or the suppression of facts therein, as the case may be - cannot be called wilful, the appeal is allowed. - Civil Appeal No. 3486 of 1984 - - - Dated:- 6-9-1994 - B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Suhas C. Sen a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had obtained the said benefit on the basis of a false declaration to the effect that his production of excisable goods was not in excess of Rs. 15 lacs. It was alleged that value of Rapidogens and Naphthol ASG manufactured by the appellant was in excess of Rs. 15 lacs. The appellant submitted his explanation wherein he submitted that he was under the bona fide impression that inasmuch as Rapidogens was exempt from duty by virtue of Notification No. 180/61, value of Rapidogens manufactured by him need not be included in the declaration filed by him for the purpose of Notification No. 71/78. This explanation was rejected and the Assistant Collector revoked the benefit of the said Notification and levied the appropriate duty. It may be mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in regard to the manufacture of Rapidogens had been, on other occasions, supplied and was in the possession of Excise authorities in answer to various queries and in the shape of gate passes, when it came to making a statement for the purpose of availing of the Notification in question, the fact remains that the appellant had failed and neglected to furnish the requisite information and thereby was guilty of a mis-statement." 4.In short, the Tribunal was of the opinion that so far as fraud, suppression or mis-statement of fact in the information statutorily required to be supplied to the excise authorities is concerned, question of intent is immaterial. 5.The main limb of Section 11A provides limitation of six months. In cases, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration, for the reason that the said product was fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 180/61, dated November 23, 1961. Certain facts are brought to our notice in support of this plea. It is also brought to our notice that on the date of filing of his declaration, two High Courts had taken the view that the goods exempted from duty are not includible within the definition of `excisable goods' as defined in clause (d) of Section 2. No doubt, two other High Courts had taken a contrary view. The appellant's factory is in the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay High Court had not taken a view one way or the other. In all the circumstances, the appellant says, he was under the bona fide impression that he need not mention the value of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
