Dutiable denim fabrics and suppression of facts sustained extended limitation and penalty for undisclosed clearances.

Yarn-dyed fabrics cleared as denim fabrics were treated as dutiable, because the records, invoices, gate passes and statements showed manufacture and sale of denim fabrics on a principal-to-principal basis, and the plea of non-marketability for want of singeing and finishing was rejected. The demand was also held within the extended limitation period, since the monthly returns described the goods as exempt unprocessed cotton fabrics and the true nature of clearances was not disclosed, amounting to suppression of facts. Penalty on the managing director was sustained on evidence of his active involvement and knowledge of the manufacturing activity.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the unprocessed yarn dyed fabrics cleared by the appellants as denim fabrics were dutiable, (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation, and (iii) whether the penalty on the managing director was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the unprocessed yarn dyed fabrics cleared by the appellants as denim fabrics were dutiable.

Analysis: The records, purchase orders, invoices, gate passes, and statements of personnel showed that the goods manufactured by the units were yarn dyed fabrics answering the statutory description of denim fabrics. The fabrics were manufactured on the appellants' own account from yarn procured by them, and the clearances to KGD were in the nature of sale on principal-to-principal basis. The plea that the goods were not marketable denim fabrics because singeing and finishing had not been carried out was rejected, since the evidence established manufacture and clearance of denim fabrics as such.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be dutiable denim fabrics, and the demand of duty was sustained against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appellants did not disclose that yarn procured on their own account was woven into fabrics and sold as denim fabrics. The monthly returns described the goods as exempt unprocessed cotton fabrics, while the relevant gate passes and invoices were recovered only during search. The department was not shown to have prior knowledge of the true nature of the clearances, and the conduct amounted to deliberate misstatement and suppression of facts.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held applicable, and the demand was not barred by time.

Issue (iii): whether the penalty on the managing director was sustainable.

Analysis: The material on record showed the managing director's active involvement in procurement of yarn suitable for denim weaving and his knowledge of the manufacture of denim fabrics by both units. On that basis, the finding that he was liable to penalty was upheld.

Conclusion: The penalty on the managing director was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands, interest, and penalties were affirmed in full, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows manufacture and clearance of dutiable goods under a misdescribed exempt category, coupled with non-disclosure of material facts, the extended period of limitation and penal consequences are attracted.

---