2008 (5) TMI 39 - AT - Central Excise

Whether single registration can be granted to two premises of same manufacturer if they are separated by a vacant plot held, yes - two premises separated only by a single plot, can be construed as equivalent to separation by public road or railway line etc. - No prejudice is caused to the revenue if single registration is given - since two premises are part of same factory and are having common administration and common manufacturing facilities, the single registration should not be denied

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of application for single registration of two premises
- Interpretation of Notification No. 36/01-C.E. (N.T.)
- Conditions for granting single registration

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of the rejection of an application for single registration of two premises by the Commissioner based on the interpretation of Notification No. 36/01-C.E. (N.T.). The Commissioner rejected the application on the grounds that the two premises were not separated by a public road, railway line, or canal as required by the notification. However, the Member (J) disagreed with this reasoning, noting that the two premises belonged to the same manufacturer and satisfied other conditions such as common raw material, labor, administration, sales tax registration, and income tax assessment.

The Member (J) emphasized that the legislative intent behind the notification was to facilitate single registration for premises that are part of the same factory and share common facilities. The Member (J) argued that the mere presence of an intervening plot (plot No. 85C) between the two premises should not be a barrier to granting single registration. It was highlighted that the purpose of single registration is not defeated by such a scenario, as long as the two premises are functionally integrated and part of the same manufacturing process.

In light of these considerations, the Member (J) set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to grant single registration to the appellant. It was emphasized that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue by allowing single registration in this case. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting legal provisions in a manner that aligns with the underlying legislative intent and facilitates practical implementation in specific factual scenarios.