1992 (9) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants. Shri A. Choudhuri, JDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : K. Sankararaman, Member (T)]. - Shri R. Raghavan, learned Advocate arguing the case for the petitioners submitted that the notice had been issued to the petitioners alleging that there was suppression of the fact that they are a subsidiary of M/s. Carborundum Universal Ltd., Madras. It was also alleged that the production....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation order has gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice and decided the matter on some other factors on which they were not show caused. Thus, while the notice referred to paras2 and 3 and Notification 175/86, the decision proceeded on the basis of para 7 ibid, which was nowhere mentioned in the show cause notice. Another curious fact in this case is that though the notice had been issued f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....list and they could not be expected to hold on to the clearances till such time the same is approved. The reference to Rule 175B(2A) was also not a factor in the show cause notice. He also submitted samples of the products in question and pointed out that what they show in their product is their name below which is shown the fact that they are a subsidiary of Carborandum Universal Ltd., Madras. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bench. 3. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. For the present, we feel that it would be enough if we decide the Stay Petition. In this regard, we take note of the submission made by the learned Counsel. We find that the claim that they kept the department informed about the fact of their being a subsidiary of M/s. Carborundum Universal Ltd. would have to be sustained in view o....