2005 (3) TMI 521 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Central Excise registration for sugar and distillery units belonging to the same manufacturer.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of sugar and alcohol, sought single Central Excise registration for both units. The Commissioner rejected this request citing separate premises for the sugar and distillery divisions. The appellant argued that both units belong to the same manufacturer, with molasses produced in one unit directly transferred to the other for further manufacture. Reference was made to precedents where common registration was allowed despite physical separations like roads. The appellant relied on Notification No. 36/2001-C.E. (N.T.) to support their case.

The learned Counsel highlighted the integrated nature of production, emphasizing the advantage of a single license due to the direct transfer of molasses between units. The Tribunal's decisions in similar cases supported the appellant's stance. The presence of a railway line between the factories did not alter the fact that production was a unified activity. The learned SDR, however, referred to Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.) requiring separate registration certificates for different premises of the same registered person.

Considering the facts, the Tribunal found that issuing a common excise registration was justified due to the integrated production process and direct transfer of goods between units. The refusal to grant a single registration was deemed unjustifiable, and the impugned order was set aside. The appeal was allowed, directing the Excise authorities to issue a common excise registration for both units belonging to the appellant.