COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD. v. CHEMPHAR DRUGS & LINIMENTS, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 711

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, S. RANGANATHAN

Case summary

Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ) SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal is under section, -.... (. · ·f. J5(L)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order dated 8th January, 1988 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The issue involved in this appeal was whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in restricting the demand of duty to six months prior to the date of issue ofshow-cause notice, particularly in a case where longer period was invoked on the ground .... _ . of suppression of information in the declaration furnished by the ·,_,. respondent. '• The respondent manufactured patent and proprietary (P & P) medicines falling under T. I. 14E and also pharmacopoeia! preparations falling under T. I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff of an aggregate value of Rs. 20,59,338. 60 and cleared during the period of 1. 4. 1979 to 'A >r. 31. 3.

1980, the same without payment of duty, availing the benefit of exemption notification No. 80/80. Under the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of clause 2 of notification No. 80/80 dated 19th June, 1980 and sub-clause (iii) of clam;e (a) of notification No. 71/78 dated 1. 3. 1978 the manufacturer would not be eligible for exemption under the two notifications in . respect of clear- 1\ · ance of patent or proprietary medicines from 1st April, 1980 since the notification would not apply to a manufacturer who manufactures excisable goods falling under more than one item of the. 1st Schedule of . '4 the Act, and the aggregate value of the clearness of all such excisable goods by the manufacturer or on his behalf are cleared for home consumption from one or more factories during the preceding financial year had exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs. + The factory had cleared during the period from 1st April, 1980 to 29th October, 1980 (P & P) medicines falling under T. I. 14E valued at Rs. 4,32,050. 09.

The central excise duty payable on the goods n:moved was Rs. 55,302. 01. The respondent filed a declaration for e: . + manufactured at the relevant time. The Tribunal found that the explanation was plausible, and also noted that the Department had full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of all the goods manufactured by the respondent when the declaration was filed by the .. respondent. The respondent did not include the value of the product other than those falling under Tariff Item 14E manufactured by the respondent and this was in the knowledge, according to the Tribunal, . l of the authorities. These findings of the Tribunal have not been cha! - ~- T lenged before us or before the Tribunal itself as being based on no evidence. In that view of the matter and in view of the requirements of section lIA of the Act, the claim had to be limited to a period of six months as the Tribunal did. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion.

The appeal therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. N. P. V. Appeal dismissed.