9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hough the factories are situated in the same premise and managed by the same authority, they have separate labour force, electricity connection, license of the boilers department, license of the factories department and Central Excise department also. Both Units 1 and 2 managed by the appellants are different factories so as to make them eligible separately for the exemption contained in the Notification No.6/2002 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/997/2006-DB, E/998/2006-DB - Final Order No. 20740 - 20741 / 2018 - Dated:- 22-5-2018 - Mr. S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member Mr. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, AR For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s common order. 3. The appellants contended that Notification No.6/2002-CE exempts products of paper and paperboard or articles made therefrom from the stage of pulp, in a factory. The said exemption is subject to fulfillment of condition No.14. One of the condition of Sl. No.14 is that the exemption shall apply only to the paper and paperboard or articles made therefrom cleared for home consumption from a factory, in any financial year up to first clearances of an aggregate quantity not exceeding 3500 MT. The very expression factory used in the exemption Notification clearly shows the intention of the Government that exemption was available to goods cleared from a factory and not from a manufacturer cleared from different factories. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining common balance sheet and having common bank account, therefore, Units 1 and 2 of the appellant are not separately eligible for the benefit of Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. 5. We have gone into the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellants and the learned AR. We find that this case is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Court in the following cases: (i) Rollatainers Ltd. vs. CCE: 2004 (170) ELT 257 (SC) (ii) Amaravathi S. V. Paper Mills Ltd.: 2010 (256) ELT 679 (SC) It was held in the case o f Rollatainers Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi (supra) that simply because both the factories are in the same premise that does not lead to an inference that both the factories are one and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
