TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (9) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order is that of Central Board of Excise & Customs passed by it on appeal by the assessee against Collector of Central Excise, Baroda's Order-in-Original. Brief facts, in so far material, are as follows : 3. The assessee is manufacturing H.D.P.E. Granules either on its own or on the basis of granules supplied by another proprietary concern Prithvi Polymers on job basis. Thereafter the fabric is cut into shape and size and then stitched into HDPE sacks. In the financial year 1979-80 till around August, 1979, the assessee had been manufacturing HDPE fabrics and sacks in the same premises at 42, Industrial Estate, Vatva. Later on, it transferred the stitching operation of the cut to shapes and size fabrics to another premises at C-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government to the assessee asking it to show cause as to why the Order-in-Original of the Collector be not restored; the said show cause notice was received by the assessee on 18.7.82. 4. The assessee has urged that so far as the show cause notice issued by the Central Government is concerned, it is clearly time barred in terms of third proviso to Section 36(2) inasmuch as it has been issued after six months of the date of communication of the impugned order to the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. This position is now well settled in view of the judgment of larger Bench reported in 1986 (7) ECR 461. This judgment clearly holds that the subject period prescribed in Section 11 A regarding recovery of non-levy of short-levy must a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akhs cleared in a financial year for home consumption produced in a factory which is covered by Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. He submitted that there is no bar for a manufacturer to avail of two notifications separately if he is otherwise eligible for the same. In the instant case the assessee is eligible to benefit of notification 85/79 in respect of goods manufactured at C-1/19, Vatva. He is also eligible to the benefit of notification 89/79 because by virtue of Explanation III to the said notification the goods must be produced in a factory covered by section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. Therefore, for the purpose of computing the value limit of clearances by or on behalf of the assessee in terms of notification 89/79, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eared from all the 3 units. 7. Replying the learned Consultant submitted that there are decisions of this Tribunal where mere supply of raw material does not make a person a manufacturer or where common premises, occasionally use machinery etc. do not lead to a conclusion that the factory is one and the same or that the two persons having separate portions of the same premises are one and the same manufacturer. In this connection, he relied upon 1986 (25) E.L.T. 423 in the case of Shakti Udyog, Jullundhur v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and 1985 (19) E.L.T. 441 in the case of Jagjivan Dass and Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. In view of these two rulings, he submitted that the manufacture at C-1/19, Vatva c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from duty in terms of notification 85/79 inasmuch as it is not denied by the department that the said premises is not a factory in terms of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. Similarly, the goods produced at these premises cannot also be taken into account for computing the value limit of the clearances at 42, Vatva on behalf of the assessee in terms of Explanation III to notification 89/79. We observe that in dealing with this plea of applicability of notifications 85/79 and 89/79 the Collector has held that the premises at C-1/19, Vatva is nothing but a precinct of the assessee's factory at 42, Vatva. His finding in para 20 is the following words :- "It is obvious that as a result of the dispersal of manufacturing activity, the premis....