Suppression of material facts and residuary excise recovery upheld where handling charges were not declared in the price list.

Non-declaration of handling charges recovered by agents was treated as suppression of material facts because the agency arrangement showed the agents acted on behalf of the manufacturer and the charges were attributable to it; the demand was therefore sustained on that basis. For recovery, Rule 10 was held inapplicable because the short-levy arose from suppression rather than the limited contingencies covered by that rule, and Rule 10-A operated as the residuary provision without a limitation period. Proceedings already initiated under Rule 10-A remained valid after its deletion, so confirmation of the demand could continue notwithstanding repeal. The demand was upheld on merits and limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants suppressed facts by not declaring the handling charges recovered by their agents in the price list; (ii) whether Rule 10 or Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied to the demand; and (iii) whether proceedings and confirmation of demand could continue under Rule 10-A after its deletion from the rules.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants suppressed facts by not declaring the handling charges recovered by their agents in the price list.

Analysis: The agency agreement showed that the selling agent and sub-agents acted on behalf of the manufacturer, the manufacturer retained control over prices, sales, records, and accounts, and the appellants were entitled to inspect the agents' records. On that footing, the agents' recovery of handling charges was attributable to the appellants. Since the charges were not disclosed in the price list and were detected only on departmental scrutiny of vouchers, the non-declaration amounted to suppression of material facts.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether Rule 10 or Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 applied to the demand.

Analysis: Rule 10 applied only to short-levy caused by inadvertence, error, collusion, mis-construction, or misstatement in the situations specified by that rule. The present short-levy arose from suppression of facts and was not covered by Rule 10. Rule 10-A was the residuary provision and applied where the rules made no specific provision for recovery; it carried no limitation period.

Conclusion: Rule 10-A applied, not Rule 10, and the demand was not time-barred.

Issue (iii): Whether proceedings and confirmation of demand could continue under Rule 10-A after its deletion from the rules.

Analysis: Pending proceedings are governed by the provision validly in force when they were initiated. Deletion of the rule did not affect proceedings already commenced under it, and the earlier initiation under Rule 10-A remained legally effective for confirmation of the demand.

Conclusion: The demand could validly be confirmed notwithstanding deletion of Rule 10-A.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits and limitation, and the departmental demand was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty short-levy results from suppression of material facts and is outside the specific contingencies of Rule 10, the residuary recovery provision applies, with no limitation period, and pending proceedings remain maintainable after repeal of the provision under which they were initiated.

---