Suppression and Rule 57E relief: immediate revision of assessable value after differential duty payment defeats denial based on unproved allegations.

Suppression could not be attributed to the appellant where the assessable value and input cost were revised immediately after receiving information that the supplying unit had paid differential duty on the same date. The record showed contemporaneous payment by both units, and the materials did not establish any suppression by the appellant. On those facts, any suppression, if at all, was attributable to the supplying unit, so denial of relief under Rule 57E could not be supported on an unsubstantiated allegation. The appellant was therefore treated as entitled to the certificate under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was guilty of suppression so as to deny a certificate under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The appellant's unit revised the input cost and the assessable value of the final product immediately after receiving information that the supplying unit had paid differential duty on the same date. The record showed that the payment by both units was contemporaneous, and the materials on record did not establish any suppression by the appellant. On the facts, if suppression existed at all, it was attributable to the supplying unit, and no basis was shown for alleging suppression against the appellant.

Conclusion: The allegation of suppression against the appellant was negatived, and the appellant was held entitled to the certificate under Rule 57E.

Ratio Decidendi: Where differential duty is promptly paid and the assessable value is revised immediately on receipt of the relevant information, denial of relief under Rule 57E cannot rest on an unsubstantiated allegation of suppression.

---