1985 (1) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the meaning of Notification No. 119/75, dated 30-4-1975. The surviving part of the controversy relates to 1620 pieces of galvanised steel taper tubes fitted with bend and socket. These are known in the trade as "Hamilton tubes". The appellants did not turn up despite a date of hearing and so we have heard Shri. A.K. Jain, SDR for the Revenue. 2. In their revision application the appellants contend that the Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta held that in respect of the 1620 pieces of Hamilton tubes the differential Central Excise amounting to Rs. 14,175.64 should be paid and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed. On appeal to the Board, the demand for duty was confirmed and the penalty was set aside. 3. In their revision application....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ointed out to Shri A.K. Jain that the Board had set aside the penalty imposed on the ground that a case did not conclusively establish mala fides on the part of the appellants with a intend to evade the duty, Shri A.K. Jain submitted that suppression of facts was totally different from the concept of mens rea. He cited [1987 (27) E.L.T. 40 (A.P.)] = 1986 (10) ECC 35 (The Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise and Others). He also relied on 1986 (24) E.L.T. 80 (Indore Bottling Company, Indore v. Collector of Central Excise, Indore). The North Regional Bench, New Delhi held therein that guilty knowledge was a necessary ingredient for an offence under Rule 173Q(l)(a)(b)(c). In 1985 (22) E.L.T. 413 (Collector of Central Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....resent case, we notice that on one breath the Board has held that there was a suppression and on the same time opined that there was no conclusive proof of mala fides on the part of the appellants. It is also stated that the circumstances did not establish mala fides on the part of the appellants with intent to evade duty. A close scrutiny of this finding indicates that the Board was not satisfied that there was a deliberate or conscious omission by the appellants. When such a conclusion has been reached the reasonable inference would be that there could be no suppression calling for the invocation of the longer period of limitation. In this case it is proved that the appellants have not filed any classification list or other documents but ....