2018 (2) TMI 1228 - AT - Central Excise

Rejection of request of common registration - rejection on the ground that between appellant s existing unit and other unit for which common registration was sought, there is another unit which does not belong to appellant - Held that - the important factor is that both the units which should belong to one entity and certain criteria such as common work force, sales tax, raw materials, management etc. The fact are not in dispute that most of the factors have been fulfilled by the appellant. There is one plot in between both the premises does not belong to appellant but both the premises are interlinked by pipeline for supply and use of furnace oil by both the units. Separation of both the premises by only one plot is not significance and for this reason the request for common registration should not be rejected. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of request for common registration based on the presence of another unit not belonging to the appellant between the existing unit and the unit for which common registration was sought.
- Criteria for granting common registration as per CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions.
- Fulfillment of factors for common registration by the appellant.
- Interpretation of interlinked processes and factors for common registration.
- Consideration of common workforce, raw materials, management, and other criteria for common registration.
- Evaluation of the presence of a common road and pipeline between the units for supply and use of furnace oil.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the rejection of the appellant's request for common registration by the Commissioner due to the presence of another unit not belonging to the appellant between the existing unit and the unit for which common registration was sought. The appellant contended that all factors prescribed in the CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions were fulfilled, and there was no reason to deny the request for common registration. The Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

The Tribunal considered the factors for granting common registration as specified in the CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions. These factors included interlinked processes, common raw materials, workforce, administration, and other indicators of inter-linkage of manufacturing processes. The Tribunal noted that most of these factors were fulfilled by the appellant, and the only reason for rejection was the presence of another plot not belonging to the appellant between the premises. However, the Tribunal found that the separation by only one plot was not significant, especially considering the interlinking of the units by a pipeline for the supply and use of furnace oil.

Upon reviewing the ground plan submitted by the appellant, which showed a common road to be used by both premises and the interlinking pipeline, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to common registration for both premises. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's reasoning for rejection and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of fulfilling the criteria for common registration as per the CBEC Excise Manual and considered the presence of common workforce, raw materials, and management in determining interlinked processes for granting common registration. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of these factors and the significance of the physical separation between the units in question.