9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties were imposed on the appellant i.e. Shri Kulbir Singh and Shri Bhupinder Singh. 3. The demand was confirmed on the ground that two factories belonging to M/s. AST Paper Mills and M/s. B.K. Krafts Ltd. are actually one factory and, therefore, both are not entitled separately for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. 4. The contention of the appellant is that M/s. AST Paper Mills Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of various Kinds of paper and paperboard, since 1995. Thereafter the appellant set up another unit for the manufacture of various kinds of paper and plant and machinery was procured for the same. During the period 1998 to 2001 M/s. AST Paper Mills Ltd. owned by family consisting of two brothers namely Shri Kulbir Singh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t even in the case of one manufacturer having two separate factories and are qualified for exemptions are entitled for exemption separately. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. v. CCE reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. 257 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 161. The contention of the appellant is that the impugned order is passed on the presumption that both the units belonging to M/s. AST Paper Mills, therefore, it is one factory and the other private limited company i.e. M/s. B.K. Kraft Ltd. is only created to avail the benefit of this notification. The contention is that even in case two factories bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on from a factory - (a) during the period from 1st March 2000 to 31st March 2000, up to first clearances of an aggregate quantity not exceeding 210 Metric Tonnes and (b) on or after the 1st day of April, 2000, in any subsequent financial year, up to first clearances of an aggregate quantity not exceeding 250 Metric Tonnes 10. We find that earlier M/s. AST Paper Mills was manufacturing the specified goods and were availing the benefit of Notification and were paying appropriate duty after crossing the limit provided under the notification. M/s. AST Paper Mills Ltd., is being run by two brothers and thereafter both the brothers decided to separate their business by demerger M/s. AST Paper Mills and by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factories are one and the same. In the present case, from the facts it is apparent that there is no commonality of the purpose, both the factories have a separate entrance, there is a passage in between and they are not complimentary to each nor they are subsidiary to each other. The end-product is also different, one manufactures duplex board and the other manufactures paper. They are separately registered with the Central Excise Department. The staff is separate, their management s separate. It is also not the case of revenue that end-product of one factory is raw material for the other factory. From the above facts it is apparent that there is no commonality between the two factories, both are separate establishments run by separate Mana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
