2002 (12) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on India Ltd. and manufactures Sulphuric Acid falling under Tariff Item 14-G and Aluminium and Sodium Silico Flouride falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. M/s. Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. is a subsidiary of M/s. Gammon India Ltd. which manufactures prestressing equipments, neoprene, bearing pad, anchorage cone, hand grout pump, hydraulic jack and 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 w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bled him to invoke the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Dissatisfied with the order of the Collector, the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated January 19, 1994, the Tribunal held that there was no suppression of fact by the assessee and, therefore, the proviso to Section 11A was not attracted; however, it found that the clearance of goods by both the 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 cleara .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... plies. Had the Revenue proceeded on the basis of facts which make out a case under Para 2 of the notification, extracted above, it would have been valid for the Tribunal to have recorded the finding which it did. The show cause notice, as noted above, did not proceed on the footing that the assessee 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 Cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X