9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. AST Paper Mills Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of various Kinds of paper and paperboard, since 1995. Thereafter the appellant set up another unit for the manufacture of various kinds of paper and plant and machinery was procured for the same. During the period 1998 to 2001 M/s. AST Paper Mills Ltd. owned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that both the factories are independent factories and run by two private companies, therefore, it cannot be said that both the factories are one factory. The contention is that both the factories are in the separate premises. There is a common entrance but thereafter the entries to both the units are separate and both the units are managed by different private limited companies in pursuance to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order is passed on the presumption that both the units belonging to M/s. AST Paper Mills, therefore, it is one factory and the other private limited company i.e. M/s. B.K. Kraft Ltd. is only created to avail the benefit of this notification. The contention is that even in case two factories belonging to one company are entitled separately the benefit of this notification. If both the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he units cannot avail benefit of notification separately. 7. Heard the parties. 8. Considering the fact that in respondent's own case for the earlier period reported in 2007 (209) ELT 467 (Tri. Del.) this Tribunal has allowed the benefit of SSI Exemption to both the factories in terms of Notification No.6/2000, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
