2016 (1) TMI 734 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE, 3/2001-CE and 6/2002 -CE denied - Revenue contended that that both the units of the respondents are located on the same plot. - Held that - The scope of exemption hitherto available to paper mills after clubbing the clearance from more than one factory of a manufacturer as now being extended to allow the exemption to each factory separately. The original authority also relied on the Central Excise registration given to these units separately for different products. After such detailed examination, the lower authorities concluded that the exemption of Central Excise duty on specific quantity of paper and paper board manufactured by unit 1 and 2 of the respondents during the impugned period was admissible for them separately. After careful consideration of the finding of the original authority we find no reason to interfere with the same as all the points raised in appeal have been discussed and decided by the original authority. We fully agree with the finding of the adjudicating authority for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Whether two manufacturing units constitute a single factory for claiming exemption under specific notifications.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the original authority's decision to drop demands regarding the eligibility of a manufacturer for exemption under certain notifications. The Revenue contended that the two units of the manufacturer should be considered a single factory due to various interconnected activities and infrastructure sharing. They argued that the units shared common facilities, electricity connection, workers, and other resources, thus constituting one factory as per the definition under the Central Excise Act.

In response, the manufacturer strongly opposed the Revenue's claims, highlighting that the units were on separate plots of land with distinct buildings, entries, and exits. They emphasized that each unit had separate registrations, accounts, employees, and commercial arrangements. The manufacturer also pointed out a change in the wording of the exemption notifications, arguing that the notifications allowed for individual factory exemptions. They cited a Supreme Court decision supporting their stance on separate units for claiming exemptions.

During the proceedings, the manufacturer reiterated their arguments and cited precedents where separate Central Excise registrations were crucial in determining distinct factories for exemption purposes. The Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that the interconnectedness of the units justified considering them as a single entity for exemption eligibility.

After a thorough examination of the facts and submissions, the Tribunal upheld the original authority's decision. The Tribunal emphasized the separate registrations, accounts, and infrastructure of the units, concluding that they qualified as individual factories for exemption purposes. They referenced the legislative history and the intent behind the exemption notifications to support their ruling. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and disposed of the manufacturer's cross objections, affirming the eligibility of the units for separate exemptions under the notifications.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the criteria for determining the eligibility of manufacturing units for exemption under specific notifications, emphasizing factors such as separate registrations, infrastructure, and commercial arrangements to establish distinct factories. The decision underscored the importance of individual assessments based on legal provisions and precedents to determine exemption eligibility in such cases.