9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit of duty exemption under Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 01/03/2001 in respect of kraft paper/board manufactured by the respondent, M/s. Bansi Pulp Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., Sangli, in their second unit by treating it as a separate factory. Aggrieved of the same, the Revenue is before us. 3. In their appeal memorandum, it has been urged that, both the units of the respondent, namely, Unit No. I and II are situated in the same premises, namely, Survey No. 655/657. Therefore, Unit No. II cannot be treated as a separate factory. It is also pointed out that there is a common power connection for both the units; common facilities such as boiler, effluent treatment plant, etc., and common sales tax registration and permanent account number (PAN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, it can be easily seen that the respondent is not eligible for the benefit of duty exemption under Notification 3/2001. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that when Unit No. II was started, the respondent vide letter dated 31/12/2001 had informed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that they are starting Unit No. II as a separate factory and they would be manufacturing kraft paper/board in Unit No. II. They had also declared to the department that they would apply for Central Excise registration as soon as the value of the goods cleared for home consumption crosses the exemption limit of Rs. 10 lakhs. They also undertook to maintain separate records and to follow procedures in relation to exempted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is not the case of the Revenue that the respondent-assessee cleared from their Unit No. II a quantity more than 3500 MTs availing the exemption. It is also not the contention of the Revenue that the manufacturer availed any of the benefits of the SSI Notifications stipulated in Condition No. 13. In other words, it is not the case of the Revenue that the respondent-assessee has not fulfilled the terms and conditions of Notification No. 3 dated 01/03/2001. Their only contention is that since both the units are situated in the same premises, they should be treated as one factory and not as two different factories. He also submits that the appellant subsequently applied for Central Excise registration vide application dated 12/03/2002 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel also refers to another decision of the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai vs. Amaravathi S.V. Paper Mills Ltd. 2010 (256) ELT 679 (SC) wherein exemption was sought to be denied alleging that the two units of a manufacturer are not distinct and separate and the bifurcation of the units were made only with a view to avail exemption. Both the adjudicating and appellate authorities held that both the units had requisite equipment for manufacture of paper starting from stage of pulp to final stage and therefore, the hon'ble apex Court upheld the grant of benefit of exemption by the adjudicating and appellate authorities to the respondent therein. The ratio of this decision would also apply to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any premises wherein any manufacturing process is carried out is a factory for the purpose of Central Excise Act. In the present case, if we apply the definition to Unit No. II, which is located in a different building and has its own plant and machinery for manufacture and where manufacturing process is undertaken is a factory. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that, merely because there is no separate excise registration there was no separate factory is bereft of any logic and accordingly the same has to be rejected. Further, it is also on record that, before commencement of production, the appellant had intimated to the department that they are commencing production in Unit No. II and they will be applying for Central Excise regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that the fabrics so manufactured were without the aid of power. These are not the facts obtaining in the present case. As regards Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) the question before the Tribunal was applicability of Notification 67/95-CE dated 16/03/1995 which provided exemption on captive consumption to intermediate products used. In the said case, the intermediate products were used in another plant of the same manufacturer and the question was whether the benefit of Notification 67/95 would apply or not? Therefore, in the context of captive consumption, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that different plants manufacturing different goods would constitute one factory for the purpose of Notification 67/95-CE. In fact, the said No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
