K.S. Paripoornan ORDER
1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing 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 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 Rs. 13.75 lacs in the preceding financial year, then clearances up to 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 year 1977-78 (previous financial year) was Rs. 3,25,200 only. On the basis of the said declaration, benefit of Notification No. 71/78 was extended to him.
2. On November 19, 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 lacs. It was alleged that value of Rapidogens and Naphthol ASG manufactured by the appellant was in excess of Rs. 15 lacs. 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 April 1, 1978 and ending with October 23, 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 in so far as fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts are concerned. ........