TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (4) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rving the required procedures during the period 6-12-1977 to 21-6-1981. In the show cause notice it was further alleged that the respondents were issued licence No. 7/68/75 for the manufacture of T.I. 68 goods which was renewed upto 31-12-1979 but they discontinued payment of duty which was payable on the goods manufactured by them in terms of Notification No. 176/77 dated 18-6-1977 superseded by Notification No. 89/79 dated 1-3-1979 and Notification No. 105/80 dated 19-6-1980 by suppressing the fact that the factory was one of the units owned by SIDECO. On the grounds that the total clearances of excisable goods in the preceding year from all the different units of SIDECO had exceeded the limit of Rs. 30 lakhs it was alleged that exemption....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. In view of the order passed by the Board the Collector has filed this appeal and the respondents have filed cross-objection. 4. On behalf of the appellant, learned SDR Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram stated that the Collector had erred in holding that SIDECOs role was that of a holding company and each individual unit of the Public Sector Undertaking SIDECO was to be treated as different manufacturer in respect of exemption applicable to T.I. 68 goods. She contended that SIDECO being an independent undertaking, the value of clearances of all excisable goods cleared by all units owned by or controlled by SIDECO were required to be clubbed together for the purposes of charging Central Excise duty. She argued that the respondent was not entitled fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. It is seen that the following questions arise for consideration in this case :- (i) Whether each unit of the State Public Sector Corporation like SIDECO could be treated as an independent manufacturer of goods falling under T.I. 68, for the purpose of Notification Nos. 176/77, 89/79 and 105/80. (ii) Whether the demand issued to the respondents as per notice dated 8-10-1984 for the period 6-12-1977 to 21-6-1981 was time barred. 7. Taking up the first point we find that subject to the satisfaction of the condition laid down in the exemption in respect of T.I. 68 goods under Notification No. 176/77 was applicable only to the first clearance for home consumption by or on behalf of the manufacturer from one or more factories upto a v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing extract from the impugned order in regard to the submissions made by the appellants during the proceedings before the Collector : "M/s. Government Instrument Workshop, Pappanamcodo, in their letter No. GIW/S-O/371/80 dated 6-11-1984 have stated that from 1977 onwards the unit was functioning as a unit of "SIDCO"; that their application for exemption, based on the Notification No. 176/77 dated 18-6-1977 which was superseded by 89/79 dated 1-3-1979 and Notification No. 105/80 dated 19-6-1980 for the goods manufactured in the Unit was submitted to the Central Excise authorities and permission was granted with effect from 18-6-1977 to 31-3-1978; that they had not suppressed any fact, that their organisation was a unit of SIDCO, furth....