- (1.) The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of two kinds of dyes. One is called the Rapidogens and the other Naphthol ASG. So far as Rapidogens is concerned, it was held exempt from duty totally by virtue of Notification no. 180/61 dated 23/11/1961. Naphthol ASG was, of course, not exempt from duty under the said notification. In the case of this product, theappellant claimed the benefit of another exemption notification being notification No. 71/78 dated 1/3/1978. This notification provided that if the total production of excisable goods in a factory does not exceed 13.75 lakhs in the preceding financial year, then clearances up to five lakhs 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 year 1977-78 (previous financial year) was Rs. 3,25,200. 00 only. On the basis of the said declaration, benefit of notification No. 71/78 was extended to him.
(2.) On 19-11-1981, the Assistant Collector issued a notice to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be deprived of the benefit of Notification No. 71/78 inasmuch as he had obtained the said benefit on the basis of a false declaration to the effect that his production of excisable goods was not in excess of Rs. 15 lakhs. It was alleged that value of rapidogens and Naphthol ASG manufactured by the appellant was in excess of Rs. 15 lakhs. The appellant submitted his explanation wherein he submitted that he was under the bona fide impression that inasmuch as rapidogens was exempt from duty by virtue of Notification No. 180/61, value of Rapidogens manufactured by him need not be included in the declaration filed by him for the purpose of Notification No. 71/78. This explanation was rejected and the Assistant Collector revoked the benefit of the said notification and levied the appropriate duty. It may be mentioned that the period for which the duty was so levied is the period commencing from 1/4/1978 and ending with 23/10/1978, i. e. , for a period more than six months anterior to the notice. This could be done only if the appellant's case fell within the proviso to Section 11-A. Otherwise not.
(3.) The Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. His further appeal to the tribunal also failed. The tribunal inter alia adopted the following reasoning while dismissing the appeal: "While misstatement 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 misstatement in the information statutorily required to be supplied to the Excise authorities attract the larger period of limitation. The intent is immaterial insofar as fraud, misstatement 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 misstatement, insofar as there has been a failure to include the quantity of Rapidogens manufactured during the relevant period in the statement furnished along with the classification list as well as the declaration appended thereto. The requirements of the notification in question are unambiguous and there is no warrant or scope for bona fide misconstruction. While it may be that the relevant information in regard to the manufacture of Rapidogens had been, on other occasions, supplied and 119 was in the possession of Excise authorities in answer to various queries and in the shape of gate passes, when it came to making a statement for the purpose of availing of the notification in question, the fact remains that the appellant had failed and neglected to furnish the requisite information and thereby was guilty of a misstatement. ";