9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factured filters falling under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff by employing less then 10 workers. They approached the Central Excise Authority for exemption for the goods manufactured at the premises No. 19F Sector-2, under Notification No. 46/81. This notification exempts from Central Excise duty goods manufactured in other than a factory as defined under Section 2(m) of Factories Act, 1948. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh by his communication dated 24-3-1984, held that the appellants unit at Sector 1, Parwanoo is registered under the [Factories] Act, 1948 and that the new unit at Sector 2 is within the appellants fold and that the new unit is simply an extension of the main factory of the appellants. The Assistant Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal decision reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 790. In the case of Cothas K. Prakash v. Collector of Central Excise. 4. The submissions made by both the sides have been carefully considered. Notification 46/81 exempts goods falling under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff and manufactured in premises other than a factory as defined in clause 2(m) of Factories Act, 1948 from Central Excise duty. The ground on which the Department has denied the exemption to the goods i.e. filters is that the other premises is only part and parcel of the first premises which is licensed under Central Excise and has no independent existence. However it is found that in similar circumstances relating to the same notification, the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notification has been clearly brought out in the Order No. 649/84-D, dated 16-11-1984 of the Tribunal in the case of Saw Mill Cum Timber Seasoning Plant v. C.C.E. The Tribunal observed, The Additional Collector should have examined whether at the relevant time, the Saw Mill cum Timber Seasoning Plant (without clubbing the number of workers employed in any other factory of the manufacturer) came within the definition of factory" under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. If he found that it did not come within that definition, he should have held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification 85/79 and Notification 46/81 as amended by Notification 92/81, and would be entitled to full relief." The Cothas Prakash cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
