Suppression of material facts in SSI exemption disputes justified treating undisclosed brand-name use as wilful default.

Non-disclosure of a brand-name arrangement and the use of another entity's logo by an SSI unit was treated as wilful default and suppression of material facts. The Court noted that the assessee did not reveal the underlying transaction or permission for such use in the classification list, in reply to the show-cause notice, or before the adjudicating authority. Ignorance of the exemption position did not excuse the omission because the material arrangement itself remained undisclosed. On that record, the non-disclosure was not inadvertent or immaterial, and interference with the Commissioner's order was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's failure to disclose the brand-name arrangement and the use of another company's logo amounted to wilful default and suppression of material facts so as to justify interference with the Commissioner's order.

Analysis: The Department's case was that the assessee, an SSI unit, had cleared goods while concealing the fact that it was using the brand name and logo of another entity. The Court found that the assessee had not disclosed the underlying transaction or arrangement enabling such use, either in the classification list, in response to the show-cause notice, or before the adjudicating authority. The ignorance of the exemption position did not explain the omission to disclose the material arrangement. On the record, there was no basis to treat the non-disclosure as inadvertent or immaterial.

Conclusion: The non-disclosure constituted wilful default and suppression of material facts, and the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the Commissioner's order.

---