https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85924 Jurisdiction under Section 11A was upheld because, although the Assistant Collector was competent to decide demands within six months, the Central Excise Rules did not bar the Collector from exercising that power. Exemption under Notification No. 77/85 could not be denied by clubbing the clearances and capital investment of two concerns where the record showed separate legal entities, only one unit was operating during the relevant period, and the investment was below the prescribed limit. Once the units were treated as separate and entitled to exemption individually, the penalty also failed. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:59:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85924 Jurisdiction under Section 11A was upheld because, although the Assistant Collector was competent to decide demands within six months, the Central Excise Rules did not bar the Collector from exercising that power. Exemption under Notification No. 77/85 could not be denied by clubbing the clearances and capital investment of two concerns where the record showed separate legal entities, only one unit was operating during the relevant period, and the investment was below the prescribed limit. Once the units were treated as separate and entitled to exemption individually, the penalty also failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85924