9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also not disputed the said premises shown in the registration application filed by the respondent. This fact itself leads the bona fide of the assessee and strengthens their stand that the storing of modvatable goods outside the factory gate was on account of paucity of space in the factory and cannot be held to be an effort on their part to remove the goods clandestinely. The fact that the said goods having been reflected in the accounts of the security agency is also a relevant factor to be considered - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1584-1585/2007 -EX[SM] - Final Order Nos.50089-50090/2014 - Dated:- 15-1-2014 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, J. For the Appellant : Shri U.K. Srivastava, AR JUDGEMENT Per Hon ble Mrs. Arch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove order, Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the assessee on the ground that the said open space outside walled section of the factory has to be treated as factory premises, in terms of the definition of factory appearing in Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also took note of various precedence decisions of the Tribunal and held that even if two plots are separated by a public road, transfer of goods acrossed it for captive consumption has to be considered as being within the same factory. He further observed that the assessee had been using the said open space for storing their goods ever since their unit started production and the same had been shown as the part of the factory premises even in the application for ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of permission or approval of the said permission by the competent authority. 6. After carefully appreciating the reasons given by both the sides, I find that there is no dispute on the factual position. In terms of the Board circular itself, modvatable goods can be stored outside the premises. The only requirement is the permission of the Department. Further the fact that the appellant was storing the said goods outside their walled factory for a longer period was also not being disputed by the Revenue. Merely because, on one fine morning, Revenue has considered the said practice to be wrong cannot be made a reason for seizure and subsequent confiscation of the said goods. Further, Revenue has also not disputed the said premises shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
