9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s-32 against the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras II Division and issued from his File C.No. IV/16/186/86, dated 20-12-1988. The order-in-original was communicated to the appellants on 4-1-1989 and the present appeal was filed on 20-3-1989. Appellants were heard on 17-7-1989 when they were represented by Mr. P.S. Chakravarthy and Mr. P.C. Anand, Consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisionally approved the department cannot choose to demand duty particularly in the light of all the facts being known to the department. Even the show cause notice lacks jurisdiction as Superintendent has issued the show cause notice as to why the permission given by a superior officer should not be denied to the appellants. 4. The demand is time barred, nor has any bond or surety has been is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the aggregate value of goods cleared by the different and distinct companies cannot be clubbed-ownership no criteria. Notification 71/78 (now 83/873). Since the G.S.C. and the Kerala Ceramic Ltd. were two different legal entities, the fact that they were owned by the Government of Kerala cannot make them one unit. Therefore, it was not correct on the part of the Assistant Collector to clu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
