Misdeclaration in refund claims justified suppression and extended limitation, sustaining duty demand and penalty in excise proceedings.

Misdeclaration in a refund claim justified invocation of suppression and the extended limitation period where the appellant had stated that no prior refund had been claimed, but the exported goods had already been covered by rebate obtained through merchant exporters. The rebate on export was treated in substance as a refund of duty and was sanctioned on the manufacturer's authorisation, so the merchant exporter was regarded as acting for the appellant in the rebate process. Recovery was therefore sustained against the appellant, not the merchant exporter, and the objection based on absence of review under Section 35E did not assist the appellant in view of the Tribunal precedent relied on by the Revenue. The demand and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and penalty was sustainable on the ground that the appellant had misdeclared the facts while claiming refund, thereby justifying invocation of the extended period and recovery under the central excise law.

Analysis: The appellant claimed refund while knowing that the exported goods had already been the subject of rebate claimed through merchant exporters. The declaration in the refund claim that no refund on that account had been claimed earlier was found to be untrue in the surrounding factual context, because the rebate on exports operated in substance as refund of duty on the exported goods and was sanctioned only on the manufacturer's authorization. The merchant exporter was therefore treated as acting for the appellant in the rebate process. On that basis, the invocation of suppression and the extended period was held to be justified. The contention that recovery should have been made from the merchant exporter was rejected because the wrong refund claim originated from the appellant, and the grievance about absence of review under Section 35E was also held not to assist the appellant in view of the applicable Tribunal precedent relied upon by the Revenue.

Conclusion: The demand and penalty were upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

---