Full Judgment
2. The department issued a notice on 2-9-1993 to the appellant, proposing withdrawal of the benefit of the exemption that had been availed of by the appellant for the goods cleared between 7-8-1988 and 30-9-1989. The notice alleged that what was cleared by the appellant was in fact transformers to which the benefit of notification was not available. The basis for this allegation was that the appellant had described, in the gate passes which were issued, the goods cleared by it as "semi-finished transformers." The extended period contained in the proviso under Section 11A(1) of the Act was invoked, alleging misdeclaration in the classification list of the goods. A penalty was also proposed. The Commissioner confirmed the proposal in the notice, demanded the duty mentioned therein and imposed a penalty on the appellant holding that the charges in the notice had been established.
Hence this appeal.
3. The position on the merits of the matter is arguable and far from clear. However, the advocate for the appellant strongly contends that the extended period will not be available. The appellant had periodically submitted, in the month following clearance of the goods, the gate passes, as part of the RT 12 returns filed by it. It is precisely from these gate passes that the department had come to know of the description of the goods as semi-finished transformers which is the basis for the notice. Hence the extended period will not be available. The departmental representative counters this argument by saying that the goods were misdeclared in the classification list.
4. Even assuming that there was misdeclaration in the classification list, we still do not find that the extended period was available to the department. The fact that the goods were described as semi-finished transformers in the gate passes could have been evident to the department a month after the goods were cleared. The contention raised before the Commissioner by the appellant that the fact that the R.T. 12 returns, to which the gate passes were annexed, had been assessed finally shows that the departmental officers had applied their minds to the assessment. Having done so, they cannot later allege mis-declaration so as to invoke the extended period of limitation.
There were, in short, no facts cited in the notice, which were not known to the department as a result of which notice could not have been issued within the normal period of limitation. The extended period therefore was not available to the department.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order set aside.
Consequential relief, according to law.