M/S. KORES INDIA LTD., CHENNAIversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

A                 MIS. KORES INDIA LTD., CHENNAI
                                v.
             COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

                              NOVEMBER 23, 2004
B
                 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]

          Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944-Section I IA proviso-Central
    Excise Rules, 1944-Rule 9(2)-Assessee engaged in cutting of typewriter/
    telex ribbons into standard pre-determined lengths-Levy of excise duty
c   invoking period of limitation-Case of assessee that cutting ofjumbo rolls
    into smaller size does not amount to manufacturing process and bonafide
    belief of non-exciseability-Correctness of-Held : Process of producing
    ribbons in spools out of jumbo rolls results in producing commercially
    distinct and identifiable article having distinct name, function and use and
D   has separate market-A/so assessee has a separate unit, machinery and
    workforce to manufacture in spool form-Thus, the process is a manufacturing
    process-Further, .from facts it is clear that· there was suppression of fact
    refuting to manufacture and removal of goods with the intent to evade
    payment of duty, thus, extended period of limitation invokable under Rule
    9(2) read with proviso to Section I I A for demand duty-Order of Collector
E   as upheld by tribunal does not call for interference.

         Words and Phrases :

          'Manufacture'-Meaning of
F
         Appellant-assessee's factory is engaged in a process whereby
    typewriter/telex ribbons are cut into standard pre-determined lengths.
    Collector of Excise levied duty on typewriter ribbons cleared by the
    assessee during certain period holding the transaction as a manufacturing
    process by invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to
G   section llA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. It was assessees'
    case that since appropriate duty had been levied on jumbo roles received
    by them from two small scale units, duty could not be levied again; and
    that apart from cutting of ribbons into standard pre·determined lengths,
    the assessee did not take any activity on the ribbons received. Tribunal
H   held that the cutting of ribbons in smaller size and spooling them into
                                        320
          MIS. KORES INDIA LTD. CHENNAI v. C.C.E., CHENNAI           321


on the automatic spooling machines amounts to manufacture and as             A
such duty is payable on typewriter/telex ribbons; and that as there was
clear contravention of Rule 9(1) with the intention to evade, extended
period of limitation was applicable. In the connected appeals it was held
the transaction was not a manufacturing process and as such the duty
was not payable. Hence, the present appeals.                                 B

     Appellant - assessee contended that cutting the jumbo rolls into
smaller size may amount to processing but does not amount to
manufacturing; that the product was not subject to levy of excise duty;
and that the extended period of limitation is not applicable because to
infer suppression of facts the Revenue had to establish something more
                                                                             c
than mere bonafide mistake.

      Respondent - Excise Department contended that manufacturing
activity is involved by which a different commercial commodity has
come into existence, having a new name and character; and that with          D
clear knowledge that the process involved manufacture, the activity was
undertaken and, as such it is the legal duty of the assessee to take out
the licence and pay duty; and the same being deliberately avoided with
malafide intention, it was clear case of suppression of facts attracting
extended period of limitation.                                               E
     Disposing of the appeals, the Court

      HELD : 1. In the instant case, assessee submitted that ribbon in
rolls of 210 mtrs, and above in length are purchased from two small
scale units. The said Jumbo rolls were fed into cutting and splitting        F
machines in their premises and ribbons of standard lengths of 10 mtrs.
and 5 mtrs. were cut/slit and subsequently wound/spooled on the metal
spools and 10 such spools are blister packed and sealed with aluminium
foil. It was categorically observed that the assessee produced ribbons in
spools out of Jumbo rolls and the resultant product is a distinct,           G
identifiable article having distinct name, function and use. The resultant
product is also commercially distinct as understood in commercial
parlance and has a separate market. Both products are not inter-
changeable. Once the Jumbo rolls are cut into smaller sizes, they
completely lost their earlier identity and cannot be used for the same       H
    322                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   purpose as was done before cutting. The ribbon in Jumbo rolls cannot
    be used in a typewriter and similarly a person who requires 30 pieces
    of spool ribbon will not be satisfied if he is offered Jumbo rolls of equal
    length. Furthermore, the assessee has a separate unit, machinery and
    work force to manufacture in spool form. Therefore, the process
B   amounted to manufacturing process and no case is made out for
    interference with the factual findings. [328-E-F-G-H; 329-D]

         Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes),
    Ernakulam v. Mis. Coco Fibres, [1992) Supp. 1 SCC 290; Collector of
    Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana,
C   Rajasthan, [1991) 4 SCC 473; Mis. Saraswati Sugar Mills and Others v._
    Haryana State Board and Others, [1992) 1 SCC 418; Ujagar Prints v.
    Union of India, [1989) 3 SCC 488 and Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of
    India, (1985) 3 SCC 314, relied on.

D        Prince Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Ind/. Society v. C.C.E.,
    (1996) 88 ELT 637 SC; Union ofIndia v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., (1998)
    97 ELT 5 SC and Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector ofC. Ex.
    Jaipur, (2003) 156 ELT 396 SC, referred to.          ·

          Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition, referred to.
E
          2. With regard to the plea ofnon-exciseability, the Collector factually
    focussed on the conduct of the assessee to conclude lack of bonfides. At no
    point of time the Revenue Department was informed about the
    manufacturing activity undertaken by the assessee at their unit as required
F   under law. Collector's order with reference to the price lists, and some
    gate-passes seized from the make up depot, notes that the assessee was
    manufacturing identical goods in their other unit apart from other
    varieties. wifli reference to sales invoices it was noted that the price
    quoted is inclusive of excise duty, though no excise duty was paid in respect
    of the goods which according to Revenue was manufactured at Madras. It
G   held that the charge of suppression of fact and removal of goods in
    contravention of Rules with intent to evade payment of duty is fully
    established and the extended time limit under Rule 9(2) read with proviso
    to Section 1 lA is invokable for demand duty which was upheld by the
    Tribunal and does not warrant any interference being based on factual
H   conclusions which cannot be termed as perverse. [330-D-E; 331-A-E]
   MIS. KORES INDIA LTD. CHENNAI v. C.C.E., CHENNAI [PASAYAT, J.)      323

    Mis. Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore,           A
(1989) 4 SCC 275 and CCEv. Champhar Drugs and Liniments, Hyderabad,
(1989) 2   sec 127, referred to.
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4322 of
1999.                                                                          B
     From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.99 of the Central Excise
Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at
Chennai in A No. E/SB/5261/94 in F.O. No. 605 of 1999.

                                   WITH                                        c
        C.A. Nos. 2682-2690 of 2004.

     V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav and V. Balachandran for the Appellant
in C.A. No. 4322/99 and Respondent in C.A. Nos. 2682-90/2000.                  D
     Mohan Parasaran, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Binu Tamta and
P. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent in C.A. No. 4322/99 and Appellant in
C.A. Nos. 2682-90/2000.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             E

      ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. : These appeals are inter-linked. In Civil
Appeal No. 4322of1999 Mis Kores India Ltd., Chennai (hereinafter referred
to as the 'assessee') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by
the Customs, Excise and (Gold) Control Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal
                                                                               F
Bench, Chennai (in short the 'Tribunal') holding that demand for duty raised
in respect of typewriter/telex ribbons is in order. In the connected appeals
Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore calls in question legality of the New
Delhi Bench of CEGA T taking a divergent view in holding that duty was
not payable.
                                                                               G
         Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

      So far as civil appeal no. 432211999 is concerned, show cause notice
was issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Chenr..ai (in short the
'Commissioner') on 22.3.1993, inter alia, proposing levy of duty on the        H
    324                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   typewriter ribbons cleared by the assessee during the period I .3. I 988 to
    30.9. 1992 by invoking extended period of limitation under proviso to Section
    I IA of the Central Excise and Salt Act, I 944 (in short the' Act'). In the reply
    to the show cause notice, assessee took the stand that no process of
    manufacturing is involved in the concerned transaction. Assessee receives
B   excise duty paid on typewriter/telex ribbons in jumbo rolls of 2 I 0 mtrs. or
    more length from two small scale units in Madras. In the assessee's factory
    typewriter rolls are fed into cutting and spooling machines wherein the
    ribbons of standard length of I 0 mtrs. and 5 metrs. are cut and spooled into
    metal spoons. The ribbons in spools are packed and sold by the assessee.
    With reference to Heading 96. I 2 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff
C   Act, I 985 (in short the 'Tariff Act') it was submitted that since appropriate
    cen.tral excise duty had been levied on the rolls there is no question of paying
    any further duty. Apart from cutting of ribbons into standard pre-determined
    lengths, the assessee does not take any activity on the ribbons received. It
    is to be noted that by order-in-original no. 40/93 dated 19.8.1993 passed by
D   the Collector of Central Excise, duty of Rs. 2,89, 76000 was levied on
    clearance of carbon papers and typewriter ribbons from the assessee's
    factory at Madras. Duty was affirmed under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise
    Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules') read with proviso to sub-section (I) of
    Section l lA of the Act. Further demand of Rs. 2, I 4,066 was confirmed on
    seized carbon papers and ribbons. Seized goods of both varieties valued at
E   Rs. 5,36,276.36 were held to be liable for confiscation and were released
    by enforcing the Bank Guarantee furnished to the extent of Rs. 50,000.
    Collector also levied penalty of Rs.30 lakhs under Rule I 73Q of the Rules.

           Show cause notice related to the two products i.e. carbon papers for
F   the period l.3.88 to September, 1992 and typewriter/Telex ribbons for the
    period 1.4.88 to September, 1992. The present dispute relates only to
    typewriter/telex ribbons.

           The CEGA T held that the cutting of ribbons in smaller size and
    spooling them into on the automatic spooling machines amounts to
G   manufacture and, therefore, duty is payable on these ribbons. The conversion
    is done as per requirement of consumers in different spools to suit Typewriter
    machines of different brand names. Ribbons received by the Madras Unit
    cannot be supplied to the customers in the form received by merely reducing
    the length by cutting. It is further held that the product becomes saleable
H   commodity only after it is spooled according to the desired sizes and,
    MIS. KORES INDIA LTD. CHENNAI v. C.C.E., CHENNAI [PASAYAT, J.]       325

therefore, excise duty is payable as a new and distinct identity is acquired.    A
The factual findings recorded by the Collector were affirmed.

       In the connected appeals the stand of the assessee was accepted and
the levy of duty by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore was deleted.
While the Chennai Bench observed that manufacturing process was involved         B
the New Delhi Bench held otherwise. It was concluded that manufacturing
of ink ribbon is complete without process of cartridges and that Chapter
Heading 96.12 does not make any distinction in Cartridges and the cassettes.

        In support of civil appeal no. 4322/1999 Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran,
learned counsel submitted that CEGA Twas not justified in holding that any       C
manufacturing process was involved. According to him cutting the jumbo
rolls into the smaller size may amount to processing but by no stretch of
imagination it amounts to manufacturing. Reference was made to Prince
Khadi Woollen Handloom Prod. Coop. Ind!. Society v. C.C.E., (1996) 88
ELT 637 SC and Union of India v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., (1998) 97           D
ELT 5 SC to buttress the plea. It was submitted that whenever the intention
was to include a particular activity within the manufacturing activity it was
specifically provided. Reference was made to Chapters 37, 48 and 85 of the
Tariff Act, as position stands in 2002-2003. In any event, according to him,
the extended period of limitation was not available to be applied because
to infer suppression of facts something more than mere bonajide mistake          E
w~s necessary to be established by the Revenue. As a matter of fact, various
authorities have entertained doubt as to whether the activities in question
involved manufacturing process. Particular reference was made to the New
Delhi Bench judgment of CEGA T which is the subject matter of appeal in
civil appeal nos. 2682-2690/2000.                                                F
      Burden is on the Revenue to prove manufacture. Strong reliance was
placed on Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of C.Ex., Jaipur,
(2003) 156 ELT 396 SC, which involves cutting of marble blocks into slabs.
It was pointed out that if cutting of the blocks of marble into slabs does not
amount to manufacturing, as was held by this Court, there is no reason to        G
adopt a different yardstick so far as cutting of typewriter rolls of ribbons
into smaller sizes is concerned.

     At this juncture it is necessary to note that the duty component involved
in the present dispute after grant of revenue by the CEGA T in respect of        H
    326                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   carbon paper is Rs. 42,72,308.03. This was in addition to Rs. 54,335 which
    related to seized articles. Penalty was limited to Rupees 5 lakhs. In civil
    appeal nos. 2682-2690/2000 the duty involved is Rs. 70,22,974.46, which
    was deleted by the impugned judgment.

B         In response, Mr. M. Pafasaran, learned ASG, submitted that nature of
    activity has been analysed in great detail by the Collector and CEGAT.
    Taking note of the factual position it has been concluded that manufacturing
    activity is involved. It has been clearly established that different commercial
    commodity has come into existence and the commodity which was already
    in existence serves no purpose and no commercial use after the process. A
c   new name and character has come into existence. The original commodity
    after processing does not possess original identity. It is pointed out that there
    cannot be bonafide doubt in the mind of assessee in not obtaining licence
    and not disclosing the turnovers. With clear knowledge that the process

D
    involved manufacture, the activity was undertaken and, therefore, duty was
    payable. It is the legal duty of the assessee to take out the licence and pay
    duty. It has been deliberately avoided to be done with ma/afide intention
    and, therefore, there was clear case of suppression of facts attracting extended
                                                                                        -
                                                                                        \




    period of limitation.

          In Black's Law Dictionary, (5th Edition), the word 'manufacture' has
E   been defined as, "the process or operation of making goods or any material
    produced by hand, by machinery or by other agency; by the hand, by
    machinery, or by art. The production of articles for use from raw or prepared
    materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities, properties or
    combinations, whether by hand labour or machine". Thus by process by
F   manufacture something is produced and brought into existence which is
    different from that out of which it is made in the sense that the thing
    produced is by itself a commercial commodity capable of being sold or
    supplied. The material from which the thing or product is manufactured may
    necessarily lose its identity or may become transformed into the basic or
G   essential properties. (See Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board
    ofRevenue (Taxes), Ernaku/am v. Mis. Coco Fibres, [1992] Supp. l SCC
    290).

         Manufacturt implies a change but every change is not manufacture,
    yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and --
H   manipulation. Naturally, manufacture is the end result of one or more
    MIS. KORES INDIA LTD. CHENNA! v. C.C.E., CHENNAI [PASAYAT, J.]         327


processes through which the original commodities are made to pass. The             A
nature and extent of processing may vary from one class to another. There
may be several stages of processing, a different kind of processing at each
stage. With each process suffered the original commodity experiences a
change. Whenever a commodity undergoes a change as a result of some
operation performed on it or in regard to it, such operation would amount          B
to processing of the commodity. But it is only when the change or a series
of changes takes the commodity to the point where commercially it can no
longer be regarded as the original commodity but instead is recognized as
a new and distinct article that a manufacture can be said to take place.
Process in manufacture or in relation to manufacture implies not only the
production but also various stages through which the raw material is subjected     c
to change by different operations. It is the cumulative effect of the various
processes to which the raw material is subjected to (sic that the) manufactured
product emerges. Therefore, each step towards such production would be
a process in relation to the manufacture. Where any particular process is so
 integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that      D
process processing of goods would be impossible or commercially
 inexpedient, that process is one in relation to the manufacture. (See Collector
of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana,
Rajasthan, [1991] 4 SCC 473.

      'Manufacture' is a transformation of an article, which is commercially       E
different from the one, which is converted. The essence of manufacture is
the change of one object to another for the purpose of making it marketable.
The essential point thus is that in manufacture something is brought into
existence, which is different from that, which originally existed in the sense
that the thing produced is by itself a commercially different commodity            F
whereas in the case of processing it is not necessary to produce a commercially
different article. (See Mis. Saraswati Sugar Mills and Others v. Haryana
State Board and Others, [1992] 1 SCC 418).

      The prevalent and generally accepted test to ascertain that there is
'manufacture' is whether the change or the series of changes brought about         G
by the application of processes take the commodity to the point where,
commercially, it can no longer be regarded as the original commodity but
is, instead, recognized as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a
result of the process. There might be borderline cases where either conclusion
with equal justification can be reached. Insistence on any sharp or intrinsic      H
    328                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   distinction between 'processing and manufacture', results in an
    oversimplification of both and tends to blur their interdependence. (See
    Ujagar Prints v. Union of India, [1989] 3 SCC 488).

          To put differently, the test to determine whether a particular activity
    amounts to 'manufacture' or not is: Does new and different goods emerge
B   having distinctive name, use and character. The moment there is
    transformation into a new commodity commercially known as a distinct and
    separate commodity having its own character, use and name, whether be it
    the result of one process or several processes 'manufacture' takes place and
    liability to duty is attracted. Etymologically the word 'manufacture' properly
c   construed would doubtless cover the transformation. It is the transformation
    of a matter into something else and that something else is a question of
    degree, whether that something else is a different commercial commodity
    having its distinct character, use and name and commercially known as such
    from that point of view is a question depending upon the facts and
    circumstances of the case. (See Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India,
D   (1985] 3 sec 314.

          Keeping in view the aforesaid principles it has to be examined whether
    the Collector and CEGAT were justified in holding that manufacturing
    activities were made out. As appears from the order of the Collector,
    reference was made to the statements given by two officials of the assessee.
E   Ribbon in rolls of 210 mtrs. and above in length are purchased from Mis.
    Solar Packaging (P) Ltd., Madras and Mis. Saket Stationery Mfg. Co.
    Bombay. The said Jumbo rolls were fed into cutting and splitting machines
    in their premises and ribbons of standard lengths of 10 mtrs. and 5 mtrs.
    were cut/slit and subsequently wound/spooled on the metal spoo~s an.d 10
F   such spools are blister packed and sealed with aluminium foil. It was
    categorically observed that the assessee produced ribbons in spools out of
    Jumbo rolls and the resultant product is a distinct, identifiable article having
    distinct name, function and use. The resultant product is also commercially
    distinct as understood in commercial parlance and has a separate market.
    Their function and use are also completely different and both products are
G   not inter-changeable. The ribbon in Jumbo rolls cannot be used in a typewriter
    and similarly a person who r~quires 30 pieces of spool ribbon will not be
    satisfied if he is offered Jumbo rolls of equal length. In fact, assessee has
    a separate unit, machinery and work force to manufacture in spool form.
    In that view of the matter, it was held that the process involved amounted
H   to manufacturing.



                                                                                       '
     MIS. KORES INDIA LTD. CHENNAI v. C.C.E., CHENNAI [PASAYAT, J.]              329

         At th is juncture it is relevant to point out that the assessee had contended   A
· before the Collector that the inputs/raw materials used have suffered excise
  duty and if any duty is payable, they should be allowed Modvat credit and
  the proportionate amount on account of such credit should be deducted from
  the proposed demand. This plea was turned out as required documentary
  evidence to show that entire quantity of inputs used have suffered tax was             B
  not produced. Before CEGA T it was accepted that there was possibility that
  manufacturers were operating under exemption available to SSI Units and
  the goods would have discharged "nil" duty. It was also accepted that since
  the goods were received from the depots and not directly received from one
  factory, therefore, any duty (paying documents) were not available. It is to
  be noted that once the Jumbo rolls are cut into smaller sizes, they completely         C
  lost their earlier identity and cannot be used for the same purpose as was
  done before cutting. In a hypothetical case, even ifthe smaller sized ribbons
  are stitched together or fixed together in any manner, there is no possibility
   of its use as Jumboo rolls. The factual findings recorded that the processing
   resulted in coming into existence of a commercial product having distinct             D
   name, character, and use are on terra firma. No case is made out for
   interference with the factual findings.

      Coming to the plea of limitation CEGA T noticed that there was
 manufacturing and removal under Rule 9( 1) at the Madras. unit and, therefore,
 demand of duty under Rule 9(2) read with Section I IA was applicable. It                E
 was concluded that there was clear contravention of Rule 9(1) with the
 intention to evade. Therefore, the contention that the assessee harboured
 bonajide and germine belief of the non-exciseability of the product was not
 acceptable. No clarification from the department was sought for and
 accordingly extended period of limitation was applicable.                               F
       In Mis. Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore,
 {1989) 4 SCC 275 it was observed with reference to earlier judgment in CCE
 v. Chmphar Drugs and liniments, Hyderabad, [1989) 2 SCC 127 that in
 order to avail limitation beycTJ.d a period of six months and up to a period
 of five years, in view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section I IA of             G
 the Act, it had to be established that the duty of excise had not been levied
 or paid or short-levied or short-paid, or erroneously refunded by reason of
 either fraud or collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or
 contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder, with
  intent to evade payment of duty. It was observed that something positive               H
     330                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

·A   other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or
     producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information which the
     manufacturer knew otherwise, is required to be established before it is
     saddled with any liability beyond the period of six months. Whether, in a
     particular set of facts and circumstances, there was any fraud or collusion
B    or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts contravention of any provision
     of the Act, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances
     of a particular case.

           It is to be noted that strong reliance was placed on Government Order
     passed in 1982 EL T 4840 A (GOI), dated 16.1.1982 to contend that there
c was bona fide plea about non-exciseability. Reference was also made to the
     order passed by the New Delhi Bench which is the subject matter of
     challenge in the connected appeals and the order dated 12.4.1996 passed by
     a Collector who dropped the proceedings initiated. Except the Government
     oflndia's order, all other orders were passed subsequent to the issuance of
D    the show cause notice. In this case the assessee could not have anticipated
     any such adjudication at the relevant point of view. Further, Government
     oflndia's order did not relate to ribbons. In any event, the Collector factually
     focussed on the conduct of the assessee to conclude lack of bonafides. At
     no point of time the Department was informed about manufacturing activity
     undertaken at their unit at Madras as required under law and, there was
E    suppression of facts relating to manufacturing and removal of such goods.
     In this context, the Collector observed as follows:

                    "Further perusal of invoices prepared for sale effected from
              Madras indicate that the price quoted is inclusive of excise duty
 F            whereas in reality they did not pay for Central Excise duty at all
              for the goods produced at Madras. This apart, perusal of copies of
              Price Lists; and certain gate passes seized from the Make up Depot
              disclosed that KIL, were manufacturing identical goods in question
              in their Thane Unit apart from other varieties. The goods in questicn
              have been appropriately classified as goods falling under 48.16 and
G             96.12 respectively and cleared on payment of duty. The copies of
              price list clearly indicate that KIL have filed price list and sought
              approval of assessable value for the goods in question. These
              factors goes to show that Mis KIL had clear knowledge that the
              subject goods are excisable goods and are eligible to duty under
H             Chapter 48.16 and 96.12 respectively. Knowing fully well about
        MIS. KORES INDIA LID. CHENNAI v. C.C.E., CHENNAI [PASAYA I, J.]        331

             the classification and the obligation, they have deliberately             A
             suppressed the materials facts in so far as their Madras Unit is
             concerned and have evaded payment of Central Excise duty. In the
             circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the charge of
             suppression of fact and removal of goods in contravention of Rules
             with intent to evade payment of duty is fully established and the         B
             extended time limit under Rule 9(2) read with proviso to Section
             1lA is invokable for demand duty."

         In view of the factual position as noted by the Collector and affirmed
    by the CEGAT there is no substance in the plea that the extended period
    of limitation was not applicable.                                                  C

         It is noted in the Collector's order with reference to the price lists, and
    some gate-passes seized from the Make up depot, that the assessee was
    manufacturing identical goods in their Thane unit apart from other varieties.
    Additionally, with reference to sales invoices it was noted that the price         D
    quoted is inclusive of excise duty, though no excise duty was paid in respect
    of the goods which according to Revenue was manufactured at Madras.

          As noted above, looked from any angle order of the Collector as
    affirmed on the point involved by CEGAT does not warrant any interference
    being based on factual conclusions which cannot be termed as perverse. The         E
    conclusions are based on relevant materials. Civil Appeal No. 4322/1999
    is dismissed.

          Coming to the other appeals, in view of the position indicated in detail
    in civil appeal No. 4322/1999, these appeals deserve to be allowed and are         F
    accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs in these appeals.

    N.J.                                                     Appeals disposed of.




-