ORDER 1. These appeals arise from the judgment and order (being Final Orders Nos. 82 to 85 of 1994-C) of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeals Nos. E-899, E-475, E-360 of 1988 and E-355 of 1989-C dated 19-1-1994. Civil Appeals Nos. 8022-25 of 1995 are filed by the assessee Mis Gammon Far Chems and Civil Appeals Nos. 11996-99 of 1995 are filed by the Revenue. 2. The assessee is a division of Mis Gammon India Ltd. and manufactures sulphuric acid falling under Tariff Item 14-G and aluminium and sodium silico fluoride falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Mis Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Mis Gammon India Ltd. which manufactures prestressing equipments, neoprene, bearing pad, anchorage cone, hand grout pump, hydraulic jack and sliding bearing falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The assessee availed the benefit of Notification No. 85/85 dated 17-3-1985 in respect of the goods cleared by it from its factory during the year 1984-85. On 17-8-1987, the Collector, Central Excise, Bangalore, issued a show-cause notice to the assessee as to why exemption availed by it during the year 1985-86 (sic) under the aforementioned notification should not be withdrawn and the duty on excisable goods in respect thereof should not be demanded. The proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act is to get over the period of limitation specified in the main section. The show-cause notice was mainly on the ground that Mis Gammon Far Chems has also availed the benefit of the notification and the aggregate value of Mis Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. and Mis Gammon Far Chems exceeded Rs 75 lakhs during the year 1984-85 and, therefore, the exemption under the said notification was wrongly availed. It was alleged that the assessee did not disclose the fact of its being a division of Mis Gammon India Ltd. and also the fact that Mis Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Mis Gammon India Ltd. which has almost full financial interest in it. The assessee replied to the notice stating that the fact. of the assessee being a division of Mis Gammon India Ltd. is apparent from the classification list and the letters addressed to the Excise Authorities. Ltd. is a subsidiary of Mis Gammon India Ltd. which has almost full financial interest in it. The assessee replied to the notice stating that the fact. of the assessee being a division of Mis Gammon India Ltd. is apparent from the classification list and the letters addressed to the Excise Authorities. It took the plea that there was no requirement under the law to disclose the subsidiary companies of Mis Gammon India Ltd. of which the assessee is a division. The Collector took the view that the clearance of goods by both the assessee as well as MIs Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. should be clubbed and that there was suppression of fact which enabled him to invoke the proviso to Section ll-A of the Central Excise Act. Dissatisfied with the order of the Collector. the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal. By order dated 19-1-1994. the Tribunal held that there was no suppression of fact by the assessee and. therefore, the proviso to Section 11-A was not attracted; however. it found that the clearance of goods by both the assessee as well as MIs Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. have to be clubbed and, in that regard, upheld the demand for a period of six months. It is against that order, the aforementioned appeals have been filed. 3. Mr K. Swami. learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contends that in view of the finding of the Tribunal that the clearance of goods by both the assessee as well as by MIs Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. has to be clubbed, the necessary corollary would be that there has been suppression of fact and, as such, the Tribunal should have upheld the order of the Collector invoking the proviso to Section ll-A of the Central Excise Act. He relied on para 2 of the notification in support of his contention. Mr Ravindra Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the assessee contends that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is without any basis in the show-cause notice and, therefore, it is not a valid finding; the Revenue did not place the case on the basis of para 2 of the notification, therefore, the assessee was taken by surprise as such; on the basis of the show-cause notice, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act was not attracted. 4. It will be useful to refer to para 2 of Notification No. 85/85. dated 17 -3-1985 which reads as follows: "2. Nothing contained in this notification shall apply if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption.- (a) by or on behalf of a manufacturer, from one or more factories, or (b) from any factory, by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers, had exceeded rupees seventy-five lakhs in the preceding financial year." 5. This para precludes a person from availing the, benefit of exemption under the notification if clause (a) or clause (b) applies. Had the Revenue proceeded on the basis of facts which make out a case under para 2 of the notification, extracted above, it would have been valid for the Tribunal (sic Collector) to have recorded the finding which it did. The show-cause notice, as noted above, did not proceed on the footing that the assessee did not disclose the fact of production of goods in two factories by the same manufacturer or in a factory by more manufacturers than one. The simple case of the Revenue was that by not disclosing the fact that MIs Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd. is a subsidiary of MIs Gammon India Ltd. of which the assessee is a division, there has been a suppression of fact which entitled the Collector to invoke the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act. On this aspect, the finding recorded by the Tribunal (sic a Collector) is not in accord with the case of the Revenue. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not open to the Revenue to make out a new case for invoking the proviso to Section 11- A of the Central Excise Act. 6. Insofar as the appeals filed by the assessee are concerned, in view of the fact that the goods produced by the assessee, a division of Mis Gammon India Ltd. and Mis Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of Mis Gammon India Ltd., are for and on behalf of Mis Gammon India Ltd., clubbing of the clearance of goods cannot be said to be illegal, having regard to the provisions of the aforesaid notification. The assessee cannot, therefore, avail the exemption under the notification. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed. The assessee cannot, therefore, avail the exemption under the notification. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.