9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided the issue of clubbing is bad in law. Equally, on the issue of suppression of material facts leading to the extended period of limitation being applicable to the first of the six Show Cause Notices, the CESTAT is equally cursory, relying upon one letter dated 20.07.1998 sent by the subsidiary company in which nothing is stated from which it can be said that there is suppression or otherwise of facts except the fact that M/s. Margo Bio Controls (P) Ltd. happens to be a 100 per cent subsidiary of the holding company viz., M/s. P.J. Margo (P) Ltd. This case should be remanded to the CESTAT to decide afresh as to whether any case for clubbing of excisable goods manufactured by the holding company and the subsidiary company is or is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to 31.03.2003. A large number of issues were decided by the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2005, but Shri A. K. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has confined himself to two of these issues. According to him, the CESTAT has not dealt with whether a subsidiary company, viz., Respondent No. 3 in the present appeal, is only a dummy, consequent to which the excisable goods manufactured by it needs to be clubbed with its holding company, viz., Respondent No. 1. If this is done, it is an admitted position that the terms of Notification No. 7/97 dated 01.03.1997, which exempts Small Scale Units if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods do not exceed three crores in the preceding financial year, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clubbed only on the basis of a circular dated 29.05.1992. A cursory reading of the circular would show that it refers to a completely different Notification and not to Notification No. 7/97 dated 01.03.1997. In fact, this Court, in 'Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Modi Alkalies Chemicals Ltd. Ors. [2004 (7) SCC 569] has held that this very circular would have no relevance to notifications other than the Notification mentioned therein. This judgment was followed in 'Parle Bisleri Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad' [2010 (14) SCC 378]. It is clear, therefore, that the sole basis on which the CESTAT has decided the issue of clubbing is bad in law. Equally, on the issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
