2001 (12) TMI 697 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Application for common registration of two manufacturing divisions rejected by Commissioner of Central Excise.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Background: The appellant-company sought common registration for its Sugar and Chemical (Distillery) Divisions, located across a public road, but the application was rejected by the Commissioner. The rejection was based on the premise that the two divisions could not be considered as being in the same place of business, citing a decision of the Bombay High Court.

2. Appellant's Arguments: The appellants contended that the two divisions are part of the same factory, separated only by a road, with common records, balance sheets, and assessments for Income Tax and Sales Tax. They relied on a Tribunal order setting aside a similar rejection for another company and referred to relevant notifications and trade notices supporting their case for a single registration.

3. Appellant's Counsel's Submission: The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner's reliance on the Bombay High Court's decision was erroneous, as it involved factories at different locations, unlike the present case where the divisions are in the same premises. They emphasized the applicability of a Trade Notice allowing single registration for sections or departments of the same factory separated only by a road.

4. Respondent's Position: The Respondent, representing the impugned proceedings, distinguished between "Division" and "Section/Department" in the Trade Notice, arguing that the Trade Notice did not apply to different divisions of the same manufacturer. They also questioned the applicability of a Board's Notification relied upon by the appellant's counsel.

5. Judgment: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's rejection was legally flawed, as the two divisions were in the same area, separated only by a road, with common administration and records. The Commissioner's reasoning, based on the High Court's decision, was deemed inapplicable to the present case. The Tribunal emphasized the relevance of the Trade Notice allowing single registration for sections or departments separated only by a road, ruling in favor of the appellants and directing the issuance of a single registration for their two divisions.