( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 19-3-1982 (Annexure 7) passed by the collector, Central Excise, Meerut and the order dated 18-6-1982 (Annexure 9) passed by the central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. ( 2 ) THIS fact is not disputed that petitioner No. 2 M/s. British Motor Car Company Ltd. , is proprietor of the units M/s. Naharwar Engineering Works, i. e. the petitioner No. 1 and M/s. Ved engineering Works, Jallundur. M/s. British Motor Car Company and its subsidiaries named above submitted one annual report for the Units disclosing profit and loss accounts. The firms have common distributors, common directors and common balance sheet, and the Units belong to the same manufacturer i. e. M/s. British Motor Car Company. ( 3 ) THE short facts leading to this petition are as under. ( 4 ) A show cause notice under Section 11a of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (for short the act) was issued to the petitioners by the Assistant Collector Central Excise Division II ghaziabad calling upon them to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 99,960. 00 on the total value of goods cleared during the 1979-80 should not be recovered from them under Rule 9 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 9 (2) read with Rule 173q of the Rules. ( 5 ) WHILE replying the show cause notice usual plea was raised that the notice was barred by time having not been issued within the period of 6 months from the relevant date. But considering the proviso to Section 11a of the Act above referred plea raised by the petitioners was turned down and the impugned order dated 19-3-1982 was passed directing M/s. Naharwar Engineering works Sahibabad to pay the duty amounting to Rs. 99,960. 00 under Rule 9 (2) of the rules as demanded in the show cause notice and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00000/- (Rupees ten lacs)under Rule 9 (2) read with Rule 173q of the Rules. ( 6 ) M/s. Naharwar Engineering Works manufactures engine valves which come under Tariff Item no. 99,960. 00 under Rule 9 (2) of the rules as demanded in the show cause notice and imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00000/- (Rupees ten lacs)under Rule 9 (2) read with Rule 173q of the Rules. ( 6 ) M/s. Naharwar Engineering Works manufactures engine valves which come under Tariff Item no. 34a and diesel engine valves which come under Tariff Item No. 68 of C. E. T. This Unit already availed of exemption under Notification No. 71/78 as amended by Notification No. 141/79, dated 30-3-1979 during the financial year 1979-80 in respect of Tariff Item No. 34a, and thus they cleared goods for home consumption valued at Rs. 4,99,800. 00. During the year 1979-80 from their factory at Sahibabad without payment of duty. The duty which was worked out comes to Rs. 99,960. 00. While manufacturing the same it was declared that the Unit had no proprietory interest in any other factory manufacturing the goods under above Tariff Items. On enquiries made it was found that M/s. Naharwar Engineering Works and M/s. Ved Engineering works, both manufacture automobile parts i. e. joint Crosses and valve-guides falling under tariff Item No. 68, and during the financial year 1978-79 they cleared the excisable goods worth rs. 24,20,265. 36 for home consumption form both the Units at Sahibabad and Jallundhar, For these reasons according to the respondents, the petitioners are liable to pay duty and penalty referred to above. ( 7 ) REFUTING the claim as set out by the respondents, the petitioners emerged with the plea that as they got their classification list approved by the Department and officers, there was no question of surreptitious removal of goods from any place as such duty cannot be demanded and penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 9 (2) read with Rule 173q of the Rules. Petitioners also submitted that the subject matter of notice was covered by Section 11a of the Act and therefore, the notice itself was barred by limitation, as envisaged by first part of Section 11a of the Act. ( 8 ) THE submissions made on behalf of petitioners did not find favour by the respondent No. 3, the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut nor by the appellate authority, the Central Board of excise and Customs, New Delhi. Hence this petition. ( 8 ) THE submissions made on behalf of petitioners did not find favour by the respondent No. 3, the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut nor by the appellate authority, the Central Board of excise and Customs, New Delhi. Hence this petition. ( 9 ) SRI S. P. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the value of the clearances of excisable goods in the year 1978-79 exceeded Rs. 20,00,000/- is the manifestly erroneous view of the matter inasmuch as the clubbing of clearances of M/s. Naharwar engineering Works with that of M/s. Ved Engineering Works is not permissible under law. Sri gupta further contended that the whole proceeding is bad because no notice was issued to M/s. British Motor Car Company Ltd. which is proprietor of both the units. ( 10 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner it may be observed that the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise has been confirmed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs giving cogent reasons for the same in detail. Deposit utmost Vehemece in the argument of Sri gupta, he could not dispute the fact that both the units are subsidiaries of M/s. British Motor Car company Ltd. , and both Units submitted one annual report disclosing profit and loss accounts, both the units have common distributors, common Directors and common balance sheet. On this basis the finding arrived at by the authorities below is that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 71 of 1973 as amended, and that petitioners deliberately misled the department by suppressing this fact and therefore, the limitation of 5 years as provided under Section 11a of the Act was applicable in their case. Under Section 11a of the act the limitation provided in normal course is six months but where by mis-representation or suppression of facts excise duty has not been paid or short paid, has not been levied or has been short levied or erroneously refunded by reason or fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the act or of the rule with intent to evade payment of duty, the limitation would be five years. ( 11 ) THE penalty part has also been upheld by the Board for the reason that it was a case of wilful mis-representation. ( 11 ) THE penalty part has also been upheld by the Board for the reason that it was a case of wilful mis-representation. Since both the authorities below have reached to the conclusion that by wilful mis-representation the petitioners tried to take advantage of Notification No. 71 of 1978 as amended by Notification No. 141 of 1979, dated 30-3-1979 during the financial year 1979-80 in respect of Tariff Item No. 34a, the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Though Sri Gupta convassed that conclusions arrived at by the authorities below are not warranted from the record but he could not substantiate the same. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting with the case it may also be observed that under the scheme of the Act total machinery for appeals and revisions is provided under Chapter VIA of the Act. In the instant case petitioners have approached this Court against the order of Central Board. Under Section 35b of the Act appeal is provided against the order of Central Board to the appellate Tribunal and under Section 35ee of the Act there is also a provision for revision by Central Government. Under Section 35f of the Act there is provision for depositing duty demanded or penalty levied pending appeal. Despite that vide para 41 of the petition it has been stated that petitioners have no alternative remedy except to approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction. In view of the provisions of Chapter VIA of the Act this statement does not appear to be correct. However, instead of taking technical view of the matter we are deciding this petition on merit. ( 13 ) FOR petitioners, learned counsel cited catena of decisions but in view of discussions made above, in our considered opinion, the decisions cited have no application to the facts of instant case and therefore, reproduction of the same will be of no avail. ( 14 ) IN view of the premises aforesaid we are of the considered opinion that the orders impugned in this petition did not call for any interference by this Court, consequently writ petition fails and is dismissed. .