TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clubbing on account of assessee being a subsidiary of another company. In absence of any notice to the assessee, it would now not be open for the department to pursue such line of reasonings. - 1425 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2011 - Akil Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Gaurang H. Bhatt, for the Appellant. Shri G.N. Shah and Ms. Minoo A. Shah, for the Respondent. [Order per : Akil Kureshi, J. (Oral)]. Revenue is in appeal against judgment of CESTAT dated 29-3-2006 [2006 (200) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal)]. Following question has been presented for our consideration : Whether the Hon ble CESTAT s ruling that duty shall be discharged by the holding company and not by the actual manufacturer (i.e. subsidiary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities relying on decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in case of Nutrine Sweets Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupathi reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 486 (Tri.-Bang.). The Tribunal noticed the decision of Apex Court in case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Gammon Far Chems Ltd. reported in 2003 (152) E.L.T. 28 (S.C.) and was of the opinion that the case of assessee was falling within the Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 1/93 whereas decision of the Apex Court was rendered in the background of Notification No. 85/85 dated 17-3-1985. It is this decision of the Tribunal that the Revenue has challenged before us. 5. Counsel for the Revenue vehemently contended that the Tribunal committed seri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C.) wherein the aspect of clubbing of clearances of different units on basis of mutuality of interest or flowback of funds from one unit to another came up for consideration. 7. Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties, we record that undisputedly case of the present assessee was covered by SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 1/93 and not under Notification No. 85/85. Notification No. 85/85 provided for exemption to small scale industries and assessee claiming benefit thereof should fulfill two conditions in negative form. In clause (2) of the said Notification, it is stated that : (2) Nothing contained in this notification shall apply if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessee s aggregate value of clearances all excisable goods for home consumption by or on behalf of a manufacturer. This concept of including aggregate value of clearances on behalf of manufacturer is not found in subsequent Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 1/93. It was in this background that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in case of Nutrine Sweets Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was of the opinion that merely because a company is a subsidiary company of another, clearances by both companies cannot be clubbed for the purpose of ascertaining SSI limits. To our mind this was correct assessment of the position. 9. The Apex Court in case of Gammon Far Chems Ltd. (supra) interpreted the above-noted clause (2) of Notification No. 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
