9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the respondent. On appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the respondent by observing that the Unit I and Unit II cannot be considered to be one factory, inasmuch as they were separately registered under the Central Excise and were working from two independent buildings though located in the same compound. Held that- confiscation of the same by the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res are being manufactured by Unit II. 3. The present applicant Unit I was availing benefit of Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 28-2-98, which grants exemption to the specified goods falling under Chapter 39 upto the clearance value of Rs. 85 lakhs subject to the condition that the manufacturer does not avail the credit of duty paid under Rule 57A or 57B. Admittedly, the present respondent was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be considered to be one factory, inasmuch as they were separately registered under the Central Excise and were working from two independent buildings though located in the same compound. After considering the definition of the Factory as available under the Factories Act, he concluded as under: "13. In this regard, I rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... latainers Ltd. v. CCE New Delhi - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) * Vardhaman Spg. Gen. Mills Ltd. v. CCE Chandigarh - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 94 (Tri. - Del.) 14. In view of the above, both Unit I and Unit II are to be treated as separate factories under Central Excise Act and hence have to be treated as separate independent units. If the intention of the notification is to club both the units, a sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that the exemption was being availed by claiming the same before the authority for which permission was granted by them and the monthly returns filed by the respondents reflected upon the fact of clearance of the goods under the claim of notification, the seizure of the goods itself which were still in the factory premises, on the ground that the same were likely to be cleared under the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
