Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - DelhiBusiness Combine Limited vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 9 December, 1997Equivalent citations: 1998(100)ELT355(TRI-DEL)ORDER
 

 Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)1. This Appellants are alleged to have manufactured sand moulds falling under Chapter Heading 44.80 and involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,89,046.50 cleared during the period from 1-3-1986 to 28-7-1986 without classifying the product and without issuing the gate passes for their captive consumption.2. When the matter was called none appeared on behalf of the Appellants. However, the appellants have requested decision on merits.3. Arguing on behalf of the Respondents the ld. DR submits that these sand moulds could not be given exemption under Notification No. 220/86 as this Notification grants exemption to moulds for metals.4. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Notification No. 220/86, dated 2-4-1986 exempts among other products moulds for metal (other than ingot moulds). The appellants in appeal memorandum contended that the department has completely ignored the Notification No. 220/86, dated 2-4-1986 as amended by Notification No. 279/86, dated 24-4-1986 which also exempts moulds for metals. They manufacture iron castings and motor vehicle parts and were regularly filing classification. Their activities were within the knowledge of the department. It is also pleaded by them that in an identical case show cause notice issued for the period 1-3-1988 and 1-3-1988 which was within the period of six months has been dropped on adjudication by the Additional Collector.5. As indicated earlier Notification No. 220/86, dated 2-4-1986 granted exemption to moulds of metals. It is well known fact and technological necessity that iron castings cannot be manufactured without sand moulds. Therefore one has to presume that it was within the knowledge of the department. Apart from this we find that show cause notice dated 1-12-1988 issued for the period 1-3-1986 to 28-7-1986 does not invoke any of the ingredients to justify the extended period under proviso to Section 11 A. It merely asks the appellants to show canse why duty should not [be] demanded and penalty imposed for not paying the duty during the period in question. Mere omission to disclose the correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to evade payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission on the part of one cannot render it suppression, [see Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case ofPushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. C.C.E., Bombayreported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)]. In view of this we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal.