9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises owned by the same owner with common balance sheet would be eligible for exemption under Notification No.6/2000-CE separately as they are registered separately with the Central Excise department. The said exemption which was the predecessor to notification No.3/2001 pertained to paper and paper board if the aggregate clearance from a factory in a financial year did not exceed 3500 MT, which is also the position in the case before us. Also see Amaravathi S V Paper Mills Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 172 - SUPREME COURT]. Thus Unit No.I & II of Malu Paper Mills Ltd., are separate factories and each one of them is entitled for separate exemption under Notification No.3/2001-CE dated 01/03/2001. In favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or calculating the total quantity exemption of 3500 MT under Notification No.3/2001 and demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.14,48,548.28 and also proposing to impose penalty and also demanding interest on the duty payable. The Additional Commissioner, who adjudicated the matter, came to the conclusion that since both the units have a common Board of Directors, possess one Income Tax Pan number and are governed by a single management, they should be treated as one factory. He further observed that both the units are located on the same piece of land and have a common gate and also they share the steam boiler for the production of paper. On these grounds the adjudicating authority concluded that both the units are to be taken as a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce both the units are situated on the same piece of land having a common gate and having a common management they have to be treated as one single factory and they have placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs. CCE, Meerut, 2001 (129) ELT 73 (Tri.-Del) wherein it was held that number of different plants manufacturing different excisable goods in same premises would constitute one factory and a separate registration under Central Excise Rules would not mean that they are different factories. On the other hand, the respondent has relied upon the following judgments in support of their defence:- a) Rollatainers Ltd., Vs. CCE, Delhi, 2004 (170) ELT 257 (SC) b) CCE, Madurai Vs. Rajalakshmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
