1994 (9) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT

Whether there has been a mis-statement, in so far as there has been a failure to include the quantity of Rapidogens manufactured during the relevant period in the statement furnished alongwith the classification list as well as the declaration appended thereto?

Held that:- Considering the appellant's case that he thought bona fide that he need not include the value of the Rapidogens in his declaration, for the reason that the said product was fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 180/61, dated November 23, 1961 it is also brought to our notice that on the date of filing of his declaration, two High Courts had taken the view that the goods exempted from duty are not includible within the definition of `excisable goods' as defined in clause (d) of Section 2. No doubt, two other High Courts had taken a contrary view. The appellant's factory is in the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay High Court had not taken a view one way or the other.

In the above circumstances and because the facts establish that the mis-statement of facts in the declaration filed by the appellant - or the suppression of facts therein, as the case may be - cannot be called wilful, the appeal is allowed.