Exemption for plain soya milk does not extend to flavoured beverage products; suppression and penalty require deliberate nondisclosure.

Flavoured soya milk products with added sugar, flavours and fruit pulp were treated as processed beverage products distinct from plain soya milk, so the exemption notification applied only to soya milk as such and the goods remained dutiable. The classification materials and correspondence were found to disclose the nature of the products, so deliberate suppression, misdeclaration or intent to evade duty was not established and the extended limitation period could not be invoked. On the same factual basis, redemption fine and penalty were held unsustainable because the record did not support confiscatory or penal consequences.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the flavoured and fruit-pulp-added soya milk products were covered by the exemption notification or were dutiable as non-alcoholic beverages, (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression or misdeclaration, and (iii) whether redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): whether the flavoured and fruit-pulp-added soya milk products were covered by the exemption notification or were dutiable as non-alcoholic beverages

Analysis: The classification dispute was decided by applying the earlier view on identical products. The products manufactured with added sugar, flavours and fruit pulp were treated as distinct from plain soya milk. The exemption notification was held to apply only to soya milk as such, and not to processed beverage products of the kind manufactured by the appellants.

Conclusion: The products were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification and were held dutiable.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression or misdeclaration

Analysis: The classification list and accompanying correspondence disclosed the nature of the products, including the varieties and flavouring ingredients. The department was found to have had sufficient indication of the manufacturing activity and ought to have made further enquiries before returning the classification list. On these facts, the record did not justify an inference of deliberate suppression, misdeclaration or intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable against the appellants.

Issue (iii): whether redemption fine and penalty were sustainable

Analysis: Since the appellants had disclosed their product particulars and were not found to have acted with intent to evade duty, the confiscatory consequences were held unwarranted. In the absence of material supporting deliberate evasion, the fine in lieu of confiscation and the penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Redemption fine and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the demand could not be sustained on the extended period and the confiscatory and penal orders were removed, although the goods themselves were held not to qualify for the exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification materials fairly disclose the nature of the goods, the department cannot invoke suppression or extended limitation without showing deliberate withholding of material facts; exemption for plain soya milk does not extend to processed soya milk beverage products with added flavouring ingredients.

---