1997 (12) TMI 261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the only issue involved in this case is whether their products Fudon-M-Suspension and Fudon-M-Capsule were eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 122/86. 3. The Department has denied them the benefit on the ground that the ingredients include 'Metronidazole' which was not one of the specified items in the Annexure to the notification. 4. The Department has alleged the suppression of facts and invoked longer period of time and the Additional Collector has confirmed the demand. It was his submission that he does not want to contest the case on merits as it is correct that the product had two constituents and one of them was not specified in the Annexure to the notification. He would, however, like to submit that there was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....specified material, the benefit of Notification 122/86 was not available and that is why, he has not pressed the case on merits. But, at the same time, in view of what has been mentioned by him, there was no suppression or mis-statement involved. In response to further queries from the Bench, he stated that although the party had claimed simultaneously the benefit of second Notification 116/69, he agreed with the Bench's observations that this notification was issued with reference to the old tariff and he is not in a position to show that it was continuing even after the introduction of the new tariff but what is important is the impression or the bona fide belief which the appellants had at the relevant time. In response to further querie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat there was insufficient disclosure on the part of the assessees; As the facts about the nature of activity of the unspecified items had not been indicated, suppression with the intention to avail the benefit, which was not otherwise due, was involved; Hence, the demand was not time barred and the appellants were required to pay the duty demanded. 11. We have considered the above submissions. We note that admittedly, the benefit of exemption Notification 122/86 was not available to the assessees in respect of the above products in view of the fact that one of the ingredients was a non-specified ingredient and the language of para 2 of the notification. However, insofar as the question of time bar is concerned, we observe that lear....