2009 (4) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

New registration - Revenue submits that new registration cannot be granted in view of the fact that the appellants are availing the benefit of Notification No. 39/2001 providing for refund of duty paid to units located in Kutch area of Gujarat. revenue submits that the area based exemption requires the manufacturer to produce a certificate from the empowered committee and the certificate given by the committee is premises specific and therefore any change in the premises specified, approval of the committee would be required - appellants had set up new Plant and Machinery for manufacture of coated pipes after 31-12-05 - Plant and Machinery set up for coating unit is not covered under the area based exemption notification No. 39/2001. Once Plant and Machinery is not covered by the notification, the question of getting approval of the Committee does not arise. - Commissioner in impugned order has observed that coating pipe division and bare pipe unit have been bifurcated and they are in two separate factory premises as verified by Range Supdtt separate registration did not require approval from Committee formed under notification ibid Revenue s appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Refund claims under Notification No. 39/2001 for PE coated pipes disallowed. Request for new registration of coating plant rejected by original adjudicating authority. Revenue's appeal against granting new registration. Consideration of separate Plant and Machinery for coated pipes.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing bare pipes and polyethylene coating, filed refund claims under Notification No. 39/2001 for bare pipes, which were sanctioned, but claims for PE coated pipes were disallowed due to production commencement date restrictions. The appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal still pending.

2. Following the rejection of refund claims for coated pipes, the appellants sought to separate the PE coating unit from the bare pipe manufacturing unit. They requested to amend the registration certificate to reflect this change. The lower authority rejected the request, advising the appellants to approach the committee under Notification No. 39/2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) later overturned this decision, granting new registration, which the Revenue appealed against.

3. The Revenue argued against granting new registration, citing the benefit under Notification No. 39/2001 and a Board's clarification regarding new products manufactured after a specified date. They contended that separate records were required for new products and any premises change needed committee approval. The appellant's advocate countered, stating the committee had certified the separate Plant and Machinery for pipes and coatings, and since no duty refund was granted for coated pipes, revenue would not be affected by new registration.

4. The Tribunal considered both arguments and found that the Plant and Machinery set up for the coating unit post-31-12-05 was not covered by the area-based exemption notification. The Commissioner verified the separate premises for coating and bare pipe units, as confirmed by Range Supdtt. Board instructions and the physical separation of factories supported the decision that the Revenue had no case against granting new registration.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision to grant new registration for the separate coating unit. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper segregation of premises and adherence to Central Excise laws and Board instructions in such cases.