1993 (12) TMI 146 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Identification of separate factories for availing exemption under Notification No. 28/89-C.E.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Identification of Separate Factories:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the three units of the appellant are considered separate factories or not, impacting their eligibility to avail exemption under Notification No. 28/89-C.E. The Assistant Collector had previously ruled that the Refinery, Petro-chemicals Unit, and Polyester Staple fibers Unit were distinct factories and thus ineligible for the exemption.

2. Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant contested the Assistant Collector's decision on several grounds. They argued that they operate only one factory at Dhaligaon, approved by the Central Excise Department, and that there is no area restriction for a factory. Additionally, they highlighted that different commodities with separate L-4 Licences can be manufactured in a single factory, as in their case.

3. Judicial Precedent and Case Laws:
The appellant presented a judgment by the Calcutta High Court, where the requirement of pre-deposit of Excise duty and penalty was waived. During the hearing, the appellant referenced various case laws to support their position, emphasizing the applicability of legal principles to their case.

4. Analysis and Decision:
The judgment analyzed the premises on which the Assistant Collector based their decision, including the distance between units, separate gate-passes for goods, and the initial factory plan submission. The judgment referenced the case of Ground & Weil (India) Ltd., emphasizing common management, control, staff, and shared resources among the units as factors indicating a single factory.

5. Legal Interpretation:
The judgment interpreted the submission of the factory plan and gate-pass issuance in favor of the appellant, citing the High Court's observation that inclusion of all units in the plan implies a single factory. It also clarified the application of rules regarding gate-pass issuance for continuous manufacturing processes.

6. Final Ruling:
Based on the analysis and legal interpretations, the judgment concluded that the Assistant Collector's orders were unsustainable. The appellant was deemed eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 28/89-C.E. However, relief against one of the orders was denied due to a refund claim being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

7. Outcome:
The judgment set aside one order, allowing the appeal, while rejecting the appeal against the other order due to limitation issues. The decision clarified the concept of separate factories and the criteria for availing exemptions under relevant notifications.