Abharan Jewellers vs Mangalore on 14 July, 2023
36. The Appellants on the other hand claimed that no allegation
of suppression can be levied against them since the issue of
excisability on branded jewellery was in a state of confusion. It is
also submitted this confusion resulted in various Board circulars
and with specific reference to the Board circular issued vide
F.No.354/203/2005-TRU dated 29.12.2005 where the board had
directed the officers that no precipitate action to be taken to
charge excise duty on jewellery. They relied on various decisions
with specific reference to T. N. Dadha Pharmaceuticals vs.
CCE: (2003) (152) ELT 251 (SC) where it was held that all the
three ingredients of Section 11A (1) proviso should be present
when suppression was invoked. They claimed that the impugned
orders except for baldly stating that there was suppression does
not bring about any positive evidence to establish that there was
any omission or commission to warrant invocation of the
extended period.