9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ch-Sub-heading 8544.00 and 7408.19 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the goods '). 3. They are having three more manufacturing units at Chembur (Mumbai). Madras and Faridabad manufacturing similar goods. Ownership of all the four manufacturing units lies with only one group of persons. 4. The appellants from time to time filed classification lists declaring their manufacturing activities for the said goods for the financial year 1987-88, 1988-89. They were availing the benefit of notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-86 during the year 1987-88 and 1988-89 on the basis of the aggregate value of clearances effected through all the four manufacturing units situated at Tarapur, Dist. Thane. Chembur (Mumbai), Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants were availing benefit of exemption under notification no. 175/86 dated 1-3-86 and claimed the benefit of same notification during 1988-89, on the basis that their aggregate clearance from all four units was below Rs. 150 lakhs during previous financial year 1987-88. However, they did not take into account the clearances effected by M/s. Harness Harness from the leased premises of M/s. Tarapur Cables India Pvt. Ltd., Chembur (Mumbai). If this is added to the turnover of M/s. Tarapur Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd. from their units at Mumbai, Madras, Faridabad and Tarapur, the total value of clearances exceeds Rs. 150 lakhs and the appellants become ineligible to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for the year 1988-89 in terms of para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not violated by them; (iii) As regards, para 3(b) of Notification No. 175/86 is concerned, the condition for availing exemption under this clause a Factory has to be reckoned. The total sale of one or more manufacturers in a factory has to be clubbed. It, however, does not mean that if any manufacturer has other units, the sale for those other units has to be considered for computing the total sale of the Factory having two manufacturers ; (iv) The matter of lease agreement was made known to the Department well in advance and there was no suppression of facts and, therefore, the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted in their case. They relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l their four units, yet they have failed to include the clearances of another manufacturer i.e. M/s. Harness and Harness operating in the manufacture of PVC cables with the machinery of the appellants under a lease agreement from 1-1-1988 to 31-3-1988 in order to arrive at the total value of clearances of Rs. 150 lakhs. Since on adding the value of clearances made by M/s. Harness and Harness to the value of clearances made by M/s. Tarapur Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd., the same exceed Rs. 150 lakhs during 1987-88 the appellants become disentitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for the year 1988-89. In this connection, we rely on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madurai v. Ganesh Agropack Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1994 (71) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
