- (1.) THE present appeal arises out of five appeals that were filed in Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') against the Order -in -Original dated 12 -10 -2004 passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise. These appeals, in turn, arise out of six Show Cause Notices being (1) Notice dated 12 -3 -2001 covering the period from 1 -4 -1997 to 31 -3 -2000, (2) Notice dated 26 -6 -2001 covering the period from 1 -4 -2000 to 31 -3 -2001, (3) Notice dated 7 -5 -2002 covering the period from 1 -7 -2001 to 31 -3 -2002, (4) Notice dated 24 -1 -2003 covering the period from 1 -4 -2002 to 30 -9 -2002, (5) Notice dated 24 -1 -2003 covering the period from 1 -4 -2002 to 30 -9 -2002 and (6) Notice dated 24 -6 -2003 covering the period from 1 -10 -2002 to 31 -3 -2003. A large number of issues were decided by the impugned judgment dated 25 -10 -2005 [ : 2006 (198) E.L.T. 528 (Tribunal)], but Shri A.K. Panda, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has confined himself to two of these issues. According to him, the CESTAT has not dealt with whether a subsidiary company, viz., Respondent No. 3 in the present appeal, is only a dummy, consequent to which the excisable goods manufactured by it needs to be clubbed with its holding company, viz., Respondent No. 1. If this is done, it is an admitted position that the terms of Notification No. , dated 1 -3 -1997, which exempts Small Scale Units if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods do not exceed three crores in the preceding financial year, will not apply as the aggregate value of excisable goods produced from both companies together would exceed three crores.
(2.) MR . Panda has further argued that the CESTAT has not dealt with the ground of suppression of material facts by both the holding company and the subsidiary company and has merely referred to a single letter of the subsidiary company which does not lead to the position that suppression is not made out on facts. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, argued before us that the nine factors stated by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise in his order dated 12 -10 -2004, all of which showed that Respondent No. 3 was, in fact, a dummy of Respondent No. 1, were only trotted out from the Show Cause Notice itself without any discussion of the detailed reply sent by Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 answering all these grounds to the Show Cause Notice.
(3.) WE are of the view that the issue as to whether the excisable goods manufactured by the holding company and the subsidiary company have to be clubbed together has not been satisfactorily answered either by the learned Commissioner or by the CESTAT in the impugned judgment.;