Dhoop stick manufacturers cannot be penalized under Section 11-A for genuine confusion about handicraft exemption eligibility

PADMINI PRODUCTS Versus Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore

PADMINI PRODUCTS Versus Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC), [1990] 76 STC 411 (SC), 1989 (4) SCC 275 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether dhoop sticks, dhoop coil, and dhoop powder manufactured by the appellants qualify as 'handicrafts' under Notification No. 55/75 dated 1st March 1975, thereby entitling them to full exemption from excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

- Whether such goods, if exempt from excise duty, are also exempt from the licensing requirements under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as per Notification No. 111/78 dated 9th May 1978.

- Whether the use of power-assisted machinery in the manufacture of dhoop sticks and related products precludes them from being classified as handicrafts.

- Whether the limitation period for recovery of excise duty under Section 11A of the Act is six months or five years, particularly in the absence or presence of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with intent to evade duty.

- Whether the appellants' failure to take out a licence and pay excise duty attracts penal provisions under Section 11A of the Act and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Classification of Dhoop Sticks and Related Products as Handicrafts

The appellants contended that their products-dhoop sticks, dhoop coil, and powder-fall within the category of 'handicrafts' as listed in Serial No. 8 of the Schedule annexed to Notification No. 55/75, which exempts such goods from excise duty. Supporting evidence included trade notices issued by revenue authorities recognizing agarbattis as handicrafts eligible for exemption, certification from the Basic Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics Export Promotion Council equating dhoop sticks with agarbattis, and recognition of agarbattis by the Indian Handicrafts Board.

The Tribunal and the Court examined the manufacturing process, which involved manual mixing of ingredients but significant use of power-operated machinery for kneading and extruding the paste into sticks or coils. Manual work was limited to feeding raw materials, cutting, arranging, and packaging. The Tribunal relied on definitions from the Concise Oxford Dictionary, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and UNCTAD, which emphasized that handicrafts must be predominantly the product of manual skill and handwork, with the essential character of the product derived from hand-made aspects.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's reasoning that the predominance of machine-aided processes in manufacture meant the products did not possess the essential character of handicrafts. The mere use of some manual labor or recognition by certain authorities did not suffice to classify the goods as handicrafts under the relevant notifications. The Court stated: 'only a very small portion of required work was done by hand. The main part of the manufacture of agarbaties, etc. was done with the aid of power. It was the machine that produced predominantly the end product.'

Exemption from Licensing under Rule 174

Notification No. 111/78 exempted from licensing under Rule 174 all goods unconditionally exempt from the whole of excise duty. Since the Court held that the products were not handicrafts and thus not exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 55/75, the exemption from licensing did not apply. Therefore, the appellants were required to obtain a licence under Rule 174 for manufacture and removal of such goods.

Limitation Period for Recovery of Duty under Section 11A

Section 11A(1) of the Act provides a six-month limitation period for serving a notice to recover unpaid or short-paid excise duty, except where fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty is established, in which case the period extends to five years.

The Tribunal held that the revenue was entitled to recover duty for five years prior to the show cause notice, concluding that the appellants had removed goods without payment of duty and without informing authorities, thereby attracting the extended limitation period.

The appellants argued that no positive evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, or suppression of facts existed, and that their belief in exemption and licensing exemption was reasonable, negating the applicability of the extended limitation period. The Court agreed, emphasizing that mere failure or negligence in taking out a licence or paying duty, especially when there was scope for doubt, does not constitute the positive acts required to invoke the extended limitation period under Section 11A. The Court noted: 'mere failure or negligence ... would not attract Section 11-A of the Act' and that 'failure to disclose the legal consequences of a certain provision' is not suppression of facts.

Application of Penal Provisions and Confiscation

The Tribunal had upheld confiscation of goods and imposed a penalty, though it reduced the penalty amount. The Court found that since the appellants' conduct lacked the necessary elements of fraud or wilful suppression, the penal provisions and extended recovery period were not applicable beyond six months prior to the show cause notice. The Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to modify the demand accordingly and reconsider penalty and confiscation in light of this limitation.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The appellants relied on trade notices, certifications, and recognition by handicraft boards to establish their products as handicrafts and claim exemption. The revenue emphasized the use of power machinery, the distinct nature of dhoop sticks from agarbattis, and the failure to obtain licences and pay duty. The Court carefully weighed the evidence, definitions, and policy documents, concluding that the essential character of the products was not derived from hand-made processes and that the appellants' belief in exemption did not amount to fraud or suppression.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

'Only a very small portion of required work was done by hand. The main part of the manufacture of agarbaties, etc. was done with the aid of power. It was the machine that produced predominantly the end product.'

'Mere failure or negligence on the part of the producer or manufacturer either not to take out a licence in case where there was scope for doubt as to whether licence was required to be taken out or where there was scope for doubt whether goods were dutiable or not, would not attract Section 11-A of the Act.'

'Failure to disclose the legal consequences of a certain provision is not suppression of facts.'

The Court affirmed the principle that for extending the limitation period for recovery of excise duty beyond six months under Section 11A, positive evidence of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty is essential.

It was conclusively held that dhoop sticks, coils, and powder, manufactured with significant use of power-driven machinery, do not qualify as handicrafts and hence are not exempt from excise duty or licensing requirements under the relevant notifications and rules.

The Court set aside the Tribunal's order insofar as it allowed recovery beyond six months and remanded the matter for modification of demand and reconsideration of penalty and confiscation accordingly.