1995 (3) TMI 100 - SC - Central Excise

Short Levy Dispute Resolved: Exempted Goods Turnover Ambiguity Prevents Duty Reassessment Under Section 11A

PUSHPAM PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY Versus COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY

SC examined short levy proceedings under Section 11A of Central Excises & Salt Act for years 1978-82. The Department claimed duty short levy by ... Demand - Limitation - Words and Phrases - 'Suppression of facts' The Supreme Court considered whether the Department was justified in invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 to initiate proceedings for short levy for 1978-79 to 1981-82. The appellant manufactured goods under Tariff Entry 14E (duty liable) and Item 68 (fully exempt). Notification No. 111/78 exempted turnover under Rs. 5 lakhs for Item 14E, leading the appellant to surrender its license. The Department contended that if turnover from both items was clubbed, the threshold was exceeded, justifying extended limitation under Section 11A proviso for 'suppression of facts.'The Court referenced Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector, which settled that turnover of exempted and assessable goods need not be clubbed. It held that in a state of legal uncertainty, the appellant was not guilty of 'suppression,' as no rule required disclosure of exempted goods turnover. The Court emphasized that 'suppression' under Section 11A proviso must be deliberate and intentional, akin to fraud or wilful default, not mere omission or failure to disclose known facts.Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, ruling that extended limitation could not apply absent deliberate suppression, and remitted the matter for reassessment limited to six months from the show cause notice date.