9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar from the fact that common balance sheet is being filed. It, is therefore irrelevant to contend that the two factories have separate entrances managing staff or central excise registration. What is relevant is that a manufacturer, if he has one or more factories, would be entitled for exemption at concessional rate of duty if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods does not exceed ₹ 3 crores. Since the appellant has another factory, which is manufacturing an excisable commodity, its clearances have to be added while considering the exemption notification. Since the aggregate clearances exceeded the limit of ₹ 3 crores, the appellant was not entitled for exemption. The adjudicating authority rightly issued the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal entities merely because they were holding separate excise registration and that the clearances had to be clubbed together for the purposes of granting the benefit under the notifications. Accordingly, seven show cause notices were issued to the appellant for different periods proposing a total demand of duty of ₹ 4,04,171/- along with penalty and interest. The said notice after receiving a reply culminated in the passing of an order in original in which the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 4,04,171/- and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed. The appellate authority held as under:- I have carefully gone through the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot stipulate any such conditions. I also notice that the end product is also different one manufacturer Chemicals/Adhesives and other manufacturers Cotton Fabric. The raw materials used by them are also different. Both the unit have their separate skilled staff. Both have separate Central Excise Registration. From the above discussed facts, I find that there is no commonality between the two factories. In a similar matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III clearly held that two factories in the same premises owned by same owner and having common balance sheet not treatable as one factory when they are separately registered with Excise Department, having separate staff and manageme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 1st March, 1997 is extracted hereunder:- The exemption contained in this notification shall apply only subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption (including clearances for export to Bhutan or Nepal) by a manufacturer from one or more factories, or from a factory by one or more manufacturers, has not exceeded rupees three hundred lakhs in the preceding financial year . From the aforesaid, it is clear that a manufacturer is entitled for exemption if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption from one or more factories or from a factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur Vs. Electro Mechanical Engg. Corporation, 2008 (229) ELT 321, Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus., Surate-II Vs. Catalco Chemicals (P) Ltd., 2012 (277) ELT 56 and M/s Rotallatainers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, are not applicable and are distinguishable on their own facts. On the other hand, the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gammon Far Chems Ltd., 2003 (152) ELT 28 is fully applicable, wherein the Supreme Court considered an almost identical Notification No.85/85 dated 17th March, 1985 and held that goods produced by a division of M/s Gammon India Ltd. and other subsidiary of Gammon India Ltd. for and on behalf of M/s Gammon India Ltd. was liable to be clubbed under the notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
