1990 (9) TMI 175 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the rejection of the application by the Collector (Appeals) for a consolidated license in Form L-4 for manufacturing various products within the same factory complex.

Details of the Judgment:
1. The appellant, a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, applied for one consolidated license in Form L-4 for manufacturing polyester staple fibre, acrylic staple fibre, polyester filament yarn, and nylon filament yarn within its factory complex at Jaykaynagar, Kota.
2. The appellant had previously been issued multiple licenses for different products, and due to all products being manufactured within the same factory complex, sought a consolidated license for operational convenience.
3. Despite initial rejection by the excise authorities, the appellant persisted in its request for a consolidated license, citing common ownership, utility services, and a shared sub-station among its manufacturing units.
4. Changes in excise rules and forms were introduced, prompting the appellant to reapply for a consolidated license, which was again rejected by the Superintendent of Central Excise.
5. Subsequent appeals and requests for consolidation of licenses were denied by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.
6. The Tribunal considered the layout of the factory premises, the nature of the manufacturing units, and the definition of a factory under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, in determining the eligibility of the appellant for a consolidated license.
7. It was established that the appellant's units were part of the same factory complex, sharing common boundaries and falling within the same industrial area, thus justifying the issuance of a single consolidated license.
8. The Tribunal found errors in the lower authorities' conclusions regarding separate premises and entities, emphasizing the unity of the appellant's operations within a single factory complex.
9. Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the right to obtain a consolidated license for manufacturing its goods within the factory complex.