9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actured, as per their statement, in the new factory, paper and paper board, were exempt from payment of excise duty in respect of first clearances of 3500 MT in a year in terms of Notfn. No. 6/2000 dt. 1-3-2000 entry No. 77 read with condition of No. 15. During the financial year 2000-2001, the period of dispute in this appeal, the appellants said to have claimed and cleared 3500 MT, without payment of duty, in respect of each of the two factories and in excess of 3500 MT they were to pay the duty. 2. The department launched proceedings by issue of a show cause notice dt. 6-11-2001 alleging inter alia as follows :- a. they had already established a factory for manufacture of paperhoard. b. They have, in September 2000 arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appears that application for separate registration on the ground of separate premises for separate plants were made and simultaneously registration from the Chief Inspector of Factories was obtained separately for the two plants only when the aggregate value of clearances of the parent factory was about to exceed the limit of quantity based exemption granted by Notification No. 6/2000 C.E., dt. 1-3-2000 (i.e. 3349 MTs up to 30-9-2000, the limit being 3500 MT). i. They have adopted the concessional clearances for both the factories separately. j. Thus they are unlawfully availing the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 dt. 1-3-2001 for an additional 3500 MTs. k. Accordingly duty liability @ 16% is attracted in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 entry No. 77 as per condition No. 15 while the appellants are contesting the clearance from two mills separately during the financial year, the ld. Commissioner has come to a conclusion that up to September 2000, the clearances were effected from only one mill, as the second mill came into existence thereafter, as the central excise registration for the second mill was issued only in late September 2000. Thereafter the issues to be determined in this case is - (I) Whether the notification in question exempts the factory only after it obtains registration ? (II) Whether in the facts in this case penalty could be imposed? 5. The appellants have contended that the ld. Commissioner has appreciated that the issue concerns int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wall to separate the two factories, and thereby create two separate premises, suitable for separate registration. In short, while the exemption is available to a factory, which is sought with effect from April 2000, the learned Commissioner has granted the benefit with reference to registration only with effect from October 2000. 6. We have given our careful thought to the proposition and find that registration given to the second mill has been granted under the Central Excise Rule. How it has been considered as a separate factory, is doubtful, since it is not separated by any public road passage etc. Board had issued instructions on the subject of licencing units as separate or consolidated, when they are in the same municipal area etc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the impugned order. The earlier unit clearances up to September 2000, as per RT 12 returns made, are for paper and paper board together and will have to be reckoned for the clearances till the recognition of the new unit and working out the eligibility under the notification 6/2000. 10. When the department itself has allowed the registration and recognised the two units, we cannot find any case for imposition of penalty as arrived at by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. The same is therefore required to be set aside. 11. Since we find that the order of the Commissioner as regards determination of the 3500 MTs exemption limits cannot be found fault with, duty demands as determined in the order impugned cannot be interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
