TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee did not disclose the fact of production of goods in two factories by the same manufacturer or in a factory by more manufacturers than one. The simple case of the Revenue was that by not disclosing the fact that M/s. Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. is a subsidiary of M/s. Gammon India Ltd. of which the assessee is a division, there has been a suppression of fact which entitled the Collector to invoke the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. On this aspect, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is not in accord with the case of the Revenue. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not open to the Revenue to make out a new case for invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Insofar as the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d sliding bearing falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The assessee availed the benefit of Notification No. 85/85, dated March 17, 1985 in respect of the goods cleared by it from its factory during the year 1984-85. On August 17, 1987, the Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore, issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why exemption availed by it during the year 1985-86 under the aforementioned notification should not be withdrawn and the duty on excisable goods in respect thereof should not be demanded. The proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is to get over the period of limitation specified in the main section. The show cause notice was mainly on the ground that M/s. Gammon Far Chems has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee as well as M/s. Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. have to be clubbed and, in that regard, upheld the demand for a period of six months. It is against that order, the aforementioned appeals have been filed. 3. Mr. K. Swami, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, contends that in view of the finding of the Tribunal that the clearance of goods by both the assessee as well as by M/s. Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. has to be clubbed, the necessary corollary would be that there has been suppression of fact and, as such, the Tribunal should have upheld the order of the Collector invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. He relied on paragraph 2 of the notification in support of his conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturer or in a factory by more manufacturers than one. The simple case of the Revenue was that by not disclosing the fact that M/s. Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. is a subsidiary of M/s. Gammon India Ltd. of which the assessee is a division, there has been a suppression of fact which entitled the Collector to invoke the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. On this aspect, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is not in accord with the case of the Revenue. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not open to the Revenue to make out a new case for invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 6. Insofar as the appeals filed by the assessee are concerned, in view of the fact that the goods produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
