Modvat declaration omission and suppression: non-disclosure of a product detail did not justify extended limitation on these facts.

Omission of stainless steel from a Modvat declaration did not, by itself, establish misstatement or suppression where the input, process, and final product had been disclosed and the department had accepted the later declaration. On those facts, denial of credit and invocation of the extended limitation period were not justified. A separate grievance that the appeal was heard before expiry of time to file cross-objection raised no referable legal question, because the matter was taken up for final hearing with the Departmental Representative's consent. The application for reference therefore failed because no question of law was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-mention of stainless steel in the Modvat declaration amounted to misstatement or suppression so as to justify denial of credit and invocation of the extended period of limitation; (ii) Whether the grievance that the appeal was heard before expiry of time for filing cross-objection raised any question of law warranting reference.

Issue (i): Whether non-mention of stainless steel in the Modvat declaration amounted to misstatement or suppression so as to justify denial of credit and invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: The description and classification of the inputs and final products had been declared, the same input was used through the same process for the same product, and the department had accepted the later declaration. The factual basis for alleging deliberate misstatement was absent, and the composition of the goods was not shown to have been concealed in a manner affecting the claim.

Conclusion: The omission did not amount to misstatement or suppression, and no question of law arose on that issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the grievance that the appeal was heard before expiry of time for filing cross-objection raised any question of law warranting reference.

Analysis: The matter was taken up for final hearing only after consent of the Departmental Representative. In those circumstances, the timing grievance did not disclose any legal question requiring reference.

Conclusion: The alleged premature hearing did not give rise to any question of law.

Final Conclusion: The application for reference failed as no referable question of law was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant input, process, and product are the same and the department has accepted the later declaration, omission of a descriptive detail does not by itself establish suppression; a hearing taken with consent does not create a referable question of law on cross-objection timing.

---