9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the `Polyester Staple fibers Unit are three separate factories and as such are not entitled to avail the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 28/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989 as amended. 3. Contesting the orders of the Assistant Collector the appellant argued the following main grounds in support of their case :- (1) That the Assistant Collector failed to appreciate that the appellant has only one factory at Dhaligaon. The ground plan having been approved by the Central Excise Department. (2) That there is no area restriction of a factory. (3) That the Assistant Collector failed to appreciate that in a factory different commodities having separate L-4 Licences may be manufactured in single factory only, as in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Assistant Collector are based on the following premises : (a) the huge distance separating the units, (b) at the time of application for licence by the appellant, only the plan for the Refinery had been submitted and it did not include the Xylene and Polyester Staple Fibre Units (c) that the Xylene and Polyester Staple Unit are separate factories is evident because gate-passes were issued in respect of the removal of the goods, from the Refinery to the Xylene Unit and Polyester Staple Fibre Unit. 8. I find that the appellant has cited the case of Ground Weil (India) Ltd., Vapi v. Collector of Central Excise Branch reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 338 (Tribunal). The principle enunciated in the above case is very well applicable in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the department has not contradicted the above contention as such the units cannot but be treated as single factory. 10. As regards the third contention that gate-passes were issued in respect of the removal of the goods from the Refinery to the Xylene and Polyester Staple Fibre Unit, which goes to prove that the units were different factories, it is seen that proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 52A states that Provided that in respect of removal of Excisable goods consumed within the factory for manufacture of other goods in a continuous process, the manufacturer may make out a single gate-passes at the end of the day . In the case of the appellant also single gate-passes were issued at the end of the day. This is borne out by the observat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
