B.P.Singh, J. - (1.) the appellant herein filed writ petition No. 31525 of 1982 praying for quashing of the order Annexure-G , dated 24-7-1982 passed by the assistant collector of central excise withdrawing the classification list dated 26-11-1982 effective from 27-11-1981 approved by the department, and directing the appellant to submit a revised classification list for the relevant period without claiming full exemption under the notification No. 80 of 1980, dated 19-6-1980 as amended. The learned single judge held that the appellant was not entitled to claim full exemption under the aforesaid notification and therefore the order Annexure-G was justified. The judgment and order of the learned single judge is impugned in this appeal by the appellant.
(2.) the relevant facts of the case are not in dispute: thepetitioner is a manufacturer of rubber products which admittedly is exigible to duty under tariff item No. 16-a(i) of schedule i to the central excises and salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred tc as 'the act'. Factory unit No. I situated at No. 122, industrial suburb, rajajinagar, Bangalore, is a factory belonging to M/s. Regal rubbers, which had been manufacturing identical goods in the aforesaid factory. The appellant took on sub-lease the rights in respect of the premises, equipments, and machinery, etc., of the aforesaid factory from M/s. Regal rubbers. Thereafter, the appellant started production of similar products with effect from 1st december, 1981 after obtaining l. 4 licence to manufacture such rubber products in the said factory. As required, the petitioner filed a classification list under Rule 173-b of the central excise rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') showing the manufactured rubber products as dutiable under tariff item No. 16-a(i) of the schedule i but entitled to exemption from payment of duty under notification No. 80 of 1980, dated 19-6-1980 as amended, issued under Rule 8 of the rules. The classification list was approved on 27-11-1981 and monthly returns filed thereafter were also accepted in due course.
(3.) on 13-5-1982 respondent No. 1 issued notice to theappellant to show cause why the classification list approved on 27-11-1981 should not be withdrawn and as to why the central excise duty on the clearances of rubber products under tariff item 16-a amounting to Rs. 2,40,596-13 from their factory without payment of duty from 1-12-1981 to 31-3-1982 should not be recovered from them under Section 11-a of the act. The aforesaid show-cause notice is anncxure-e to the writ petition. The appellant filed a reply showing cause (Annexure-F) in which he claimed that the appellant firm M/s. Sun rubbers started a new independent unit and this fact was brought to the notice of the department immediately after the lease was entered into and a licence issued in form l. 4. It was the case of the appellant that the manufacturing operation conducted and carried on by M/s. Sun rubbers in the aforesaid factory premises had no connection whatsoever with the business and manufacturing activity of M/s. Regal rubbers, which was an independent and separate assessee under the central excises and salt Act, 1944. Therefore the clearances made by M/s. Regal rubbers prior to 1-12-1981 from the abovesaid factory should not he clubbed or taken into consideration for purposes of granting any exemption to M/s. Sun rubbers under the exemption notification dated 19-6-1980 as amended from time to time. It was also contended that the classification list approved by the department could not be withdrawn unless evidence was brought on record to show that the assessee had suppressed particulars or had furnished inaccurate particulars while submitting the classification list.;