9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsidiary company) is tenable in law or not?" 2. Briefly stated facts are as follows. Respondent is a manufacturer. The respondent received a show cause notice on 31-7-1997 from the department in which it was alleged that it had cleared goods valued at Rs. 1 crore 89 lakhs by availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 and Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993. The assessee was 100% subsidiary company of M/s. Catalyst (India) Pvt. Ltd. and was therefore, not entitled for SSI exemption under said notifications. It was further alleged that assessee had not disclosed these facts to the department and filed classification claiming SSI exemption under the above-mentioned notifications. The department therefore, pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal committed serious error. The respondent-assessee had not disclosed full facts before the Excise Authorities. The respondent-assessee was a subsidiary of M/s. Catalyst (India) Pvt. Ltd. The total production of both the Companies exceeded the monetary limits set out in Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 1/93. He further submitted that there was total mutuality of interest between the two Companies. Even on that count, the Tribunal committed error. Reliance was placed on decision of Apex Court in case of Gammon Far Chems Ltd. (supra). Our attention was also drawn to the decision of Tribunal in case of Gammon Far Chems Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 59 (Tribunal) which came to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of all excisable goods for home consumption - (a) by or on behalf of a manufacturer, from one or more factories, or (b) from any factory, by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers, had exceeded rupees seventy-five lakhs in the preceding financial year." In comparison to above provisions made in Notification No. 85/85, Notification No. 175/86 provided the following negative conditions : "(3) Nothing contained in this notification shall apply if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption - (a) by a manufacturer, from one or more factories, or (b) from any factory, by one or more manufacturers, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e purpose of ascertaining SSI limits. To our mind this was correct assessment of the position. 9. The Apex Court in case of Gammon Far Chems Ltd. (supra) interpreted the above-noted clause (2) of Notification No. 85/85 and upheld the Revenue's stand with respect of clubbing of clearances by subsidiary with that of principal. 10. We may notice that even in absence of any clause as contained in Notification No. 85/85, if there was neutrality of interest between the two units, clubbing of clearances may still be open for the Revenue. In case of Electro Mechanical Engg. Corpn. (supra), the Apex Court in background of Notification No. 1/93 upheld the decision of the Tribunal which had come to factual finding that there was no evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
