TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (9) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved in as much as the show cause notice dated 12-1-1987 does not disclose the material or the reasons on which the charges are based. 3. It merely states that they will not be entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 25/84 as amended by Notification No. 138/86 for their product paper, as the M/s. Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. and M/s. F. Pudumjee and Co. are two factories (units) of one and the same manufacturer and the total clearance of the both the units taken together exceeds the prescribed limits of clearances under the above notifications. 4. The order-in-original dated 28-2-1989 was passed by the Assistant Collector, Pune. 5. In this order the Assistant Collector has based his finding on the order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which he has based his decision. 8. In his order he has stated that upto 30-12-1985 M/s. Pudumjee and Company was a wholly owned subsidiary company of the holding company i.e. M/s. Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills (P.P.P.M.). After 30-12-1985, a part of the shareholding owned by M/s. P.P.P.M. was diluted but M/s. P.P.P.M. had retained a minimum of 50% shareholding in M/s. F. Pudumjee & Co. and by virtue of this, M/s. F. Pudumjee & Co. was still a subsidiary of M/s. Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. This is borne out by the certificates issued by M/s. Kanja & Co., independent Solicitor and Mr. A.T. Hozdar, Chartered Accountant. Both the certificates dated 21-1-1989 and 3-2-1989 respectively speak of the fact that M/s. F. Pudumjee & Co.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Excise & Customs v. Shri J.C. Shah - 1978 (2) E.L.T. J317 and the case of Spencer & Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras as reported in AIR 1969 Madras 359, which deals with the position under the Companies Act. 11. It is his submission that this Tribunal has also followed the ratio of these judgments and other such judgments and in particular he would draw attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Government Ceramic Service Centre v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1215. However, at this stage he would emphasise that merely the factum of percentage of share holding or purchase of shares could not be considered as the determining factor for allowing or disallowing the benefit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ples of natural justice but because of the position stated by him, in the present matter, the present Collector (Appeals) was at liberty to take a view based on the material on record. 17. It was his submission that the Collector (Appeals) has referred to the Soliceters and Chartered Accountant's certificates produced by the appellants themselves and, therefore, was justified in taking them into account and basing his decision upon them. 18. It was also his submission that he would like to refer to Tribunal's order in the case of M/s. Gammon Far Chems Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, as reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 59 (Tri.) = 1994 (1) R.L.T. 334 wherein the clubbing of clearances of a holding company and its subsidiary ....