2012 (10) TMI 35 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Request for issuance of a single Central Excise Registration Certificate Held that - Two sheds for which separate Central Excise Registration have been given are located in a single Industrial Estate, which are not far off from each other. The instructions does not speak of the distance between the two manufacturing units. Moreover, these are divided by the Industrial roads and not public road - Department directed to grant single Registration in respect of 2 units i.e. Unit I and Unit II - Appeal allowed

Issues:
1. Rejection of request for a single Central Excise Registration Certificate for two units.
2. Interpretation of conditions for issuing a single registration certificate.
3. Consideration of distance and physical separation between manufacturing units.
4. Compliance with conditions specified in the Excise Manual.
5. Precedents and decisions favoring the appellant's case.
6. Government departments' role as trade facilitators.
7. Legal reasoning behind allowing the appeal and directing the grant of a single registration.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was aggrieved by the rejection of their request for a single Central Excise Registration Certificate for Unit I & Unit II located in the GIDC Industrial Estate, Kaboda. The rejection was based on the conditions specified in the C.B.E. & C.'s Excise Manual regarding the issuance of single registrations.

2. The Assistant Commissioner cited that the two units, although located in the same industrial estate, were distanced quite far from each other and were not part of a single manufacturing operation. The conditions for issuing a single registration were not met due to the physical separation between the units without a connecting road, canal, or railway line.

3. The appellant contended that they satisfied all the conditions laid down in the Excise Manual and argued that the distance between the units was not a relevant factor. They highlighted that the units were divided by industrial roads, not public roads, and provided supporting documents such as sales tax registration, income tax returns, and certificates from Chartered Accountants.

4. Precedents such as the case of Modison Metals Ltd. v. Commr. of C.Ex., Daman were cited to support the appellant's claim. Additionally, decisions in cases like Shravasti Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. and Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. favored the appellant's position, along with the dismissal of an appeal by the Commr. of C.Ex., Meerut by the Allahabad High Court.

5. The judgment emphasized a more industry-friendly approach and the role of government departments as trade facilitators. It was noted that rigidities in registration matters were unnecessary, especially considering the trend of granting single registrations to multi-location units. As long as the request was legally reasonable and did not prejudice revenue, the rejection of the appellant's request was deemed inappropriate.

6. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Department was directed to grant a single Registration for Unit I and Unit II situated at Kakoda Industrial Estate, Kakoda. The decision was based on the principle of facilitating trade without causing harm to revenue interests.

7. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of a pragmatic and industry-friendly approach in registration matters, emphasizing the need to consider the practical implications and requirements of businesses while ensuring compliance with legal standards.

← Previous Next →