9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 738X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 registration after crossing the exemption limit of 10 lakhs. It is also on record that, subsequently on 12/03/2002, the respondent-assessee applied for registration for Unit No. II and the department granted separate Central Excise registration for Unit No. II effective from 01/04/2002. The very fact of granting separate Central Excise registration for Unit No. II by the department itself proves that Unit No. II is a separate Central Excise registration. Therefore, non-obtaining of registration prior to 01/04/2002 does not mean that the two units were only one factory and they are not separate factories. - Following decision of Rollatainers Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III [2004 (7) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bleaching Mills (P) Ltd. (supra) are relevant to the facts of this case and if the ratio of these decisions are applied to the facts of the 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 ₹ 10 lakhs. They also undertook to maintain separate records and to follow procedures in relation to exempted goods. Thus, the department very well knew that the respondent-assessee was manufacturing kraft paper/board in Unit No. II and it was in a separate building even though located in the same premises/plot. He further submits that the kraft paper/board manufactured by the respondent-assessee in Unit No. II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of Central Excise, Delhi III 2004 (170) ELT 257 (SC) wherein the apex Court examined the scope of Notification NO. 6/2000-CE dated 01/03/2000, which was the predecessor to Notification 3/2001. In the said case, the hon'ble apex Court held that, two factories in the same premises owned by same owner and having common balance sheet are not treatable as one factory when they are separately registered with Excise Department, having separate staff and management, separate entrance and end product of both is also different and end product of one factory is not raw material for other, and they are not complimentary or subsidiary to each other and there is no commonality between the two factories, even though as apex level it is maintained by one company. Accordingly, the hon'ble apex Court held that the benefit of exemption Notification 6/2000-C.E. would be available in respect of the two factories owned by a single manufacturer. The ratio of the said decision would apply to the facts to the present case. 4.2 The learned Counsel 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 registration after crossing the exemption limit of ₹ 10 lakhs. It is also on record that, subsequently on 12/03/2002, the respondent-assessee applied for registration for Unit No. II and the department granted separate Central Excise registration for Unit No. II effective from 01/04/2002. The very fact of granting separate Central Excise registration for Unit No. II by the department itself proves that Unit No. II is a separate Central Excise registration. Therefore, non-obtaining of registration prior to 01/04/2002 does not mean that the two units were only one factory and they are not separate factories. 5.3 The decisions of the hon'ble apex Court in the case of Rollatoiners Ltd. (supra) and Amaravathi S.V. Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) which were on identical issues also supports the above view. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
