JUDGMENT

A.S. Oka, J. - These two appeals were admitted by a common order dated 18th January, 2007 on the following two substantial questions of law :

(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT erred in confirming the duty invoking the extended period of limitation when the finding on suppression by the CESTAT falls way short of the requirements of proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?

(2) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances, the CESTAT erred in demanding duty both from the appellant (M/s. Shansuk Industries) and also M/s. Shankar Products after holding that the clearances of both the units are to be clubbed, contrary to the decision of Supreme Court in Gajanan Fabrics Distributors [1997 (92) E.L.T. 451 (S.C.)]. The said order also records that the substantial question of law framed in ground (f) of paragraph 21 of the memorandum of appeal is not pressed.

2. These two appeals take exception to the common judgment and order dated 21st February, 2006 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short "Appellate Tribunal") in Appeal Nos. E/690, 691 and 692 of 2002 [2017 (350) E.L.T. 265 (Tribunal)].

3. The appellant in Appeal No. 196/2006 is engaged in manufacture of articles of plastic. It is a proprietary business of one Shri R.S. Shanbag. The articles of plastic are made from granules purchased by the appellant on payment of duty. The articles manufactured by the appellant are used as filters in various diverse applications. It is the case of the appellant that the articles of plastic made from duty paid granules are exempted from duty since the inception. The appellant in Appeal No. 198 of 2006 is also carrying on a similar business. Members of the family of Shri R.S. Shanbag are the partners of the said appellant. A show cause notice cum demand notice was issued on 15th September, 1999 to the appellant by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV. It is a common show cause notice addressed to the appellant in both the appeals. The notice is issued on the basis of visit of the Officer of the Preventive Section to the factories of the appellants on 31st July, 1999. The allegation in the show cause notice is that the appellants have suppressed the fact that the goods produced by the appellants fall under Chapters - 84, 85 and 91 as parts of the machinery depending upon end use and the goods do not fall under Chapter 39. Hence, the same attract excise duty. It is stated in the show cause notice that the appellant in Appeal No. 196 of 2006 gave declarations for the years 199495 to 1998-99 declaring that the goods manufactured by them are "articles of plastic, plastic water filter elements, cylinders, disks" falling under SH 3926.90. The appellant in the other appeal submitted declarations for the same period claiming that it was manufacturing "Articles of Plastic-Plastic articles reinforced by moulded components" falling under SH 3926.90. It was further alleged that from the invoices and the statements of the customers, it is found that apart from the manufacture of the items stated in the declarations, the appellants were manufacturing complete filters, battery parts, compressor parts, solenoid valve parts which have not been mentioned in the declarations filed with the department. It was alleged that the appellants have suppressed the production and clearance of the aforesaid goods actually manufactured by them and consequently, extended period of limitation provided in the proviso of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act of 1944") is invocable. Thirdly, it was alleged that the partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Shandar Products (appellant in Appeal No. 198 of 2006) is an independent unit of the appellant in Appeal No. 196 of 2006 and, therefore, clearances effected by both the units are required to be clubbed. Therefore, a duty was demanded from both the appellants calling upon