9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise L4 licence. They were granted an industrial licence by the Ministry of Industry, Government of India for substantial expansion of the installed capacity by 5 lakh tonnes (from 4 lakh tonnes to 9 lakh tonnes) to manufacture Portland cement on the basis of maximum utilisation of plant and machinery. There was a condition of the licence that such substantial expansion shall be undertaken in the existing industrial unit located at Chittorgarh (Rajasthan). 3. The respondents applied to the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur for permission under sub-rule 4 of Rule 52A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) to use separate sets of gate pass books. They also informed the department that after expansion of cement manufacturing capacity licensed in their name, they would have separate places of packing cement in the same compound. However, single R.G. 1 Register and single P.L.A. would be maintained and for this purpose, they enclosed the revised blue print of layout plan. Subsequently, on Notification No. 36/87 C.E., dated 1-3-1987, being issued, the respondents, vide their letter 1-3-1987, submitted the revised classification list effective from 28-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nced and creation of new factory was not approved. So, the plant and machinery required for expansion was to be in the name and account of the respondents. So, according to the Revenue, decision of the respondents to install new plant and machinery at some distance and not near the existing plant (i.e. Birla Cement Works) was to hoodwink the authorities by calling it a separate factory. (b) The respondents letter dated 6-6-1986, addressed to the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur, stated that they undertook expansion of existing factory and apropos to it, the respondents requested for permission to maintain two sets of Central Excise Gate Pass books because of separate places of packing cement within the same compound. The respondents, however, stated that single R.G. 1 register and single P.L.A. would be kept but the respondents did not indicate that a separate factory had been installed within the same compound. Moreover, the blue print submitted was also of the revised lay out plan of M/s. Birla Cement Works. (c) In their letter dated 23-10-1987, the respondents informed the Superintendent, Central Excise that no separate assessments were being made in the name of M/s. Chi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal passed by the Collector of Appeals, New Delhi in the case of M/s. Manglam Cement Co. Ltd., Kota. 8. L.A., Shri Bajoria, in reply, made following submissions: As far as the first ground is concerned, facts are not in dispute and the respondents admit that licence, by the Ministry of Industry, was granted to the respondents for expansion of manufacturing capacity, but it does not mean that the manufacturer has to expand his present factory. It can always set up new factory. According to him, emphasis is upon expansion of production capacity and not of factory. So, documents relied upon by the Revenue do not, in any way, go against the respondents because it is an admitted fact that licence to expand the manufacturing capacity has been granted to the present respondents and admittedly it is the respondents, who have undertaken the expansion and it is the production of the same manufacturer and so it is liable for payment of sales-tax and income-tax. He referred to Annexure-A which is a licence granted to the respondents and contended that it is nowhere stated therein that new production should be undertaken in the same factory, but what, it lays down is that the manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct would suggest that the production had not started before 1-4-1986. About contention that the said product was marketed, he contended that it has to be marketed because 1534 M.T. of cement which was produced during the trial run cannot be thrown away. But that fact, by itself, would not suggest that the factory had already started production in March, 1986. 11. Shri Bajoria, L.A., cited some authorities which we shall refer at appropriate place. 12. Regarding the first contention raised by the Revenue, it appears that there is some confusion in the departmental view, regarding meaning of industrial undertaking and factory. There is no dispute that permission has been granted to Birla Jute Industry to expand and it continues to be the owner of the new unit and so documents referred to by Sh. Sunder Rajan, lead to this fact and, in our view that is obvious, but here, as rightly pointed out by Shri Bajoria, L.A., the word substantial expansion would also include establishment of new factory, as per explanation given under Section 13 of the Industrial (Development Regulation) Act, 1951. So, here the said Act itself, envisages establishment of a new factory also. In that case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedure for obtaining licence and 175(3) reads as under : Where the applicant has more than one place of business, he shall obtain a separate licence in respect of each such place of business. 16. So, from this, it can be seen that licence is to be issued for the factory and not for the manufacturer. So, one manufacturer can have two licences. 17. Shri Bajoria, L.A., cited the following citations in this connection :- (i) Assistant Collector, Central Excise v. Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., Hyderabad -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 489) wherein it has been held as under : Licensing - Separate licences for each unit - Rules 174 and 175 - Two factories belonging to the same manufacturer - both factories situated in the same area enclosed by a single compound wall with common exit gate and one common profit and loss account - Court held, that place of business being not same the factories are to be treated as distinct and a separate licence for each of them is to be granted. (ii) Agarwal Rolling Mills, Mirzapur v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 143 (Trib.). In this case the Tribunal held the same way relying upon the above decision of the Andhra Pradesh High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
