2014 (8) TMI 333 - HC - Central Excise

Withdrawal of registration - Assessee applied for single registration to cover both the units namely Distillery and Sugar Unit - Superintendent of Central Excise visited the premises of the assessee and after necessary verification has granted the single registration vide letter dated 16.03.2001 - But later on withdrew it - Held that - Tribunal observed that both the units of the assessee are working in the same factory premises as per the approved revised plan. Both the units have been allotted a common PAN by the Income-tax Department for the purpose of joint assessment. Similarly, both the units filed the trade tax returns in the common name of M/s. Shravasti Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. The management and staff are common for both the units. The Rule-174(3) is applicable where there are more than one premises, meaning thereby different premises. In the instant case, the premises is common, so the said rule is not applicable - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of single registration to cover both Distillery and Sugar Unit.
2. Interpretation of Rule 174(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Utilization of modvat credit for distinct products.
4. Applicability of Rule 57AF and Rule 57AA of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved the denial of single registration to an assessee covering both Distillery and Sugar Unit. The Tribunal directed to issue a single registration, which was challenged by the department under Section-35 (H) (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key questions referred were regarding the amalgamation of two units manufacturing distinct products and the utilization of accumulated modvat credit under Rule 57AF of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal observed that both units operated in the same factory premises, shared common management, staff, and PAN, thus not requiring separate registration under Rule-174(3). The Tribunal's decision was supported by precedents like Commr. Of E.Ex., Madurai Vs. Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2014) and others, leading to the dismissal of the reference.

The interpretation of Rule 174(3) was crucial in determining the eligibility for common registration. The Tribunal found that since the units operated in the same premises with common management, staff, and PAN, the rule did not apply. This interpretation was supported by legal precedents, establishing that the rule was meant for different premises, not common ones. The decision highlighted the importance of the factual scenario in determining the applicability of registration requirements under the Central Excise Rules.

The issue of utilizing modvat credit for distinct products raised questions under Rule 57AF and Rule 57AA of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal's decision implied that the utilization of modvat credit and inputs not directly related to the final product manufacturing was permissible in the given context of the case. The decision provided clarity on the application of these rules in cases where multiple units operate in the same premises but manufacture distinct products, ensuring compliance with the Central Excise regulations.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant single registration to the assessee for both units based on the common operational setup and management. The dismissal of the reference affirmed the eligibility of the assessee for joint registration and the permissible utilization of modvat credit for distinct products under the Central Excise Rules. The case highlighted the importance of factual circumstances and legal precedents in interpreting and applying registration and credit utilization rules in the context of manufacturing units operating in the same premises.