TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the subsidiary company in which nothing is stated from which it can be said that there is suppression or otherwise of facts except the fact that M/s. Margo Bio Controls (P) Ltd. happens to be a 100 per cent subsidiary of the holding company viz., M/s. P.J. Margo (P) Ltd. - case should be remanded to the CESTAT to decide afresh as to whether any case for clubbing of excisable goods manufactured by the holding company and the subsidiary company is or is not made out on facts. Equally, the issue as to whether or not there has been suppression of material facts by both the aforesaid companies is also sent back for a re-determination on facts. - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. 5851/2006 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2015 - Mr. A.k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diary company, viz., Respondent No. 3 in the present appeal, is only a dummy, consequent to which the excisable goods manufactured by it needs to be clubbed with its holding company, viz., Respondent No. 1. If this is done, it is an admitted position that the terms of Notification No. 7/97 dated 01.03.1997, which exempts Small Scale Units if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods do not exceed three crores in the preceding financial year, will not apply as the aggregate value of excisable goods produced from both companies together would exceed three crores. Mr. Panda has further argued that the CESTAT has not dealt with the ground of suppression of material facts by both the holding company and the subsidiary company a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Alkalies Chemicals Ltd. Ors. [2004 (7) SCC 569] has held that this very circular would have no relevance to notifications other than the Notification mentioned therein. This judgment was followed in 'Parle Bisleri Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad' [2010 (14) SCC 378]. It is clear, therefore, that the sole basis on which the CESTAT has decided the issue of clubbing is bad in law. Equally, on the issue of suppression of material facts leading to the extended period of limitation being applicable to the first of the six Show Cause Notices, the CESTAT is equally cursory, relying upon one letter dated 20.07.1998 sent by the subsidiary company in which nothing is stated from which it can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
