1994 (9) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aphthol ASG. So far as Rapidogens is concerned, it was held exempt from duty totally by virtue of Notification No. 180/61, dated November 23, 1961. Naphthol ASG, was, of course, not exempt from duty under the said Notification. In the case of this product, the appellant claimed the benefit of another Exemption Notification being Notification No. 71/78, dated March 1, 1978. This Notification provided that if the total production of excisable goods in a factory does not exceed 13.75 lacs in the preceding financial year, then clearances upto five lacs will be exempt from duty. In his declaration filed for the purpose of claiming the benefit of Notification No. 71/78, the appellant stated that the excisable goods manufactured by him during the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al to the Tribunal also failed. The Tribunal inter alia adopted the following reasoning while dismissing the appeal : "While mis-statement or suppression of facts, per se, attract the larger period of limitation, contravention of rules without the requisite intent does not. Once this is so, it is obvious that, regardless of intent, a mere suppression of facts or mis-statement in the information statutorily required to be supplied to the excise authorities attract the larger period of limitation. The intent is immaterial in so far as fraud, mis-statement or suppression of facts are concerned. (Emphasis added) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot but hold that there has been a mis-statement, in so far as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules with intent to evade payment of duty......" 6.Now so far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident that the requisite intent, i.e., intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far as mis-statement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word "wilful" preceding the words "mis-statement or suppression of facts" which means with intent to evade duty. The next set of words "contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or Rules" are again qualified by the immediately following words "with intent to evade payment of duty". It is, therefore, not c....