ILAVIA ENTERPRISES Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice on the appeal was limited to the question of limitation.

(2.) The appellants manufacture 'shikakai' bath powder. Their contention that it was an Ayruvedic medicine was turned down in the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal under appeal and it was held that the bath powder was a cosmetic. The appellants had commenced manufacture of the bath powder on 1/08/1991 and had made the requisite declaration in April, 1992. On 10/05/1993 they were issued with a notice of demand claiming duty on the bath powder as a cosmetic for the period 1/08/1991 to 30/12/1992. The Collector held that the assessee had suppressed facts; therefore, duty could be levied for a period larger than six months. The tribunal was not satisfied that the failure to declare was bonafide and the extended period, therefore, had been correctly applied.

(3.) We do not think that what has been stated by the Collector or the tribunal makes out a case of suppression that entitles the authorities to apply the extended period. The material on record does not lead us to the conclusion that the appellants had acted with any mala fide intention. Therefore, the demand must be restricted to the period of six months preceding its date, thatis to say, for the period of six months immediately preceding 10/05/1993.