9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cates in respect of sugar and molasses were obtained in 1992 and that in respect of SDS obtained later on (in 1994). In December 2000, they applied for a single registration for all the three products under the amended provisions of Rule 174. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise allowed the application and intimated the same to the party by letter dated 2-1-2001. But, by show-cause notice dated 5-12-2001, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Varanasi, directed the party to show cause why the single registration granted to them by the Superintendent of Central Excise should not be revoked and why three separate registration certificates should not be issued to them as in the past. The appellants contested the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts by the said wall did not deprive the appellants of the benefit of single registration as clarified by the C.B.E. C. in its relevant circular; that the two units had a common PAN (Permanent Account Number) under the Income-tax Act and were owned by the same legal entity namely M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.; and that the issue involved was squarely covered in their favour by various decisions of this Tribunal. The learned Counsel cited the following decisions :- Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad [2002 (149) E.L.T. 286] K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad [2001 (133) E.L.T. 567 (T) = 2001 (47) RLT 194] Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2001(129) E.L.T. 73] Shravasti Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dministered by a common Board of Directors. If at all there is anything separate, that is only the Central Excise registration coupled with maintenance of Central Excise records. I find that the application of the company for single Central Excise registration has been rejected by the Commissioner in a manner which is glaringly erroneous in law. He has not at all adverted to the provisions of the relevant Trade Notice. On the other hand, he recorded a finding to the effect that, even if the same manufacturer had two factories situate in the same premises enclosed by a single compound wall with common exit gate, it might not be said that the factories were at the same place of business and therefore, the two factories would be granted only s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants on their own volition. Apparently, they were bound to put up the wall under the law. Such a situation is, in our view, analogous to a situation where a public utility made under the law, such as a road, canal or railway line exists, separating two interlinked units of a manufacturing company. Therefore, the Board s instructions would not hit the appellants claim for single registration. Where two or more premises are actually part of the same factory (where processes are interlinked) but are segregated by a public road, canal or railway line, they could be covered by a single registration under Rule 174 (as amended) as per the Board s instructions stated in Para 14 of the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the two Divisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
