9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration so the factories at Jolwa have to be treated as separate. Facts in this are somewhat similar to that of VARDHMAN Spinning Mills case [1999 (8) TMI 916 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] in which Tribunal held that benefit of notification can not be denied, even if the factories are under the same management. - Stay granted. - E/831-839/2010 - Stay Order Nos. S/374-382/2011-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 25-3-2011 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Shri B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri Willington Christian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri J.S. Negi, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Notification No. 29/2004-Central Excise dated 9-7-2004 as amended prescribes effective concessional rate of duty on all filament Yarn procured from outside and subject to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellants obtained separate registration does not come to their help since irrespective of their registration the factory has to be treated as a single factory. On this ground duty demand of Rs. 4,90,60,211/- has been confirmed with interest and penalty of Rs. 1.25 Crores has also been imposed on the appellant Company. In addition, a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs has also been imposed on Shri D.P. Marathe, Deputy General Manager in one of the orders under challenge. Five orders in original have been passed on the same subject and on the same issue but for different periods involving different amounts of duty and imposing different amount of penalties. In respect of one appeal, Appeal No. E/831 of 2010, there is no co-appellant. In all the remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... located within a common boundary wall and they have common labour/work force, common management and the processes are interlinked. As regards separate registration, in the impugned order, learned Commissioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Limited - 2007 (216) E.L.T. A23. In that case, the Hon ble Supreme Court had upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that number of registrations will not decide the number of factories even if they are situated in different premises. In the case of J.K. Synthetics Pvt. Limited, a view was taken that two units falling within the same premises within one boundary wall encircling the entire area of the land, the appellant is entitled to one registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion cannot be denied and exemption under Notification No. 6/2000 would be available. We find that facts in this case are also somewhat similar to this case also. The above discussion would show that the case of the appellants is prima facie covered by the previous two decisions. In the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills it was the claim of Dhampur Sugar Mills that the three factories producing sugar, paper and chemicals have to be treated as one factory and wanted one registration for this purpose. In that case, a view was taken that merely because single registration is given or multiple registrations are given that cannot be a basis for deciding whether the factory is one or different. In this case also, the claim of the appellant is that in sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
