TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (1) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture electric horns for motor vehicles and claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 71/78 and had made clearance of the horns to the tune of Rs. 4,96,760.20 up to GPI 82 dated 5-7-1982. The scrutiny of invoices, however, showed that they had collected Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,04,297.35 and which was not reflected in the value of the goods as shown in the Gate passes. 2. The lower authorities after adding the duty element collected found that the appellants had made clearances in excess of the exempted limit of Rs. 5 lakh and duty to the tune of Rs. 21,222.10 was demanded from them under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A show cause notice was issued in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause notices although the show cause notice in terms does not allege suppression as such. 7. He pleaded since the ingredients required for invoking the longer time-limit of five years as set out in the proviso to Rule 10 as applicable are there and in the show cause notice necessary facts in this regard have been set out, there was no legal informity in the lower authority's order. He, in this connection, cited the case of Cheran Engineering Corporation v. C.C.E., Coimbatore [1986 (26) E.L.T. 611]. He pleaded once it is shown that the suppression of facts is there, the demand is within time in terms of proviso to Rule 10 as application at the relevant time. 8. The learned Consultant for the appellant, Shri Vardarajan pleaded that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by such person or his agent, or (b) where any person or his agent, contravenes any of the provisions of these rules with intent to evade payment of duty and has not paid the duty in full, or (c) where any duty has been erroneously refunded by reason of collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall, in any of the CASES CITED to above, had effect as if for the words "six months" the words "five years" were substituted." It is seen that the extended time period can be invoked only if it is established by the Department that the short-levy was the result of suppression of facts by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hown. The question is whether this can be taken to be tentamounting to suppression of fact. We observe that before the lower authorities all along, the appellants have been taking the plea that so far as the duty element is concerned whether they pay to the Department or not, the same was not required to be included for computing the value of the goods. In fact, there was at the relevant time a view held by some and also there was a judgment of the High Court later that for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value under Section 4, the duty as leviable under the Tariff irrespective of whether a lower rate of duty or nil rate of duty was actually payable in terms of a notification was required to be abated from the sale price and later....