Defective exemption declaration and wilful mis-statement can justify extended limitation, while penalty may still be reduced on facts.

A defective exemption declaration that omits manufacture and clearances of A.C.S.R. cables, where a full and correct disclosure was required, can amount to wilful mis-statement and justify invocation of the extended limitation period when no independent departmental knowledge is proved. On that basis, the duty demand was treated as within time and sustained. The penalty issue was then considered separately: although the demand survived, the penalty was found excessive on the facts and was reduced, reflecting partial relief despite confirmation of the liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation or whether the extended period could be invoked on account of defective declaration and suppression of material facts; (ii) whether the penalty required interference.

Issue (i): whether the demand of duty was barred by limitation or whether the extended period could be invoked on account of defective declaration and suppression of material facts.

Analysis: The declaration filed to obtain the benefit of the exemption notifications did not disclose the manufacture and clearances of A.C.S.R. cables, though the declaration was required to be full and correct. The plea that the department had independent knowledge of the manufacture was not supported by evidence. In the absence of a proper declaration, the omission was treated as a wilful mis-statement, justifying invocation of the larger limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was held to be within time under the extended period and was confirmed against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty required interference.

Analysis: The duty demand having been sustained, the only further question was the quantum of penalty. Considering the overall facts and the amount of duty involved, the penalty was found to be excessive and was reduced.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 5,000.

Final Conclusion: The demand of duty was sustained, but the penalty was brought down to a lesser amount, leaving the assessee with only partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A defective declaration omitting material clearances, when required for exemption, can amount to wilful mis-statement and justify the extended period of limitation; however, penalty may still be reduced on the facts of the case.

---