9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 8% up to an aggregate quantity of 3500 MTs in a financial year in terms of Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002. Both the units have separate registration with the Central Excise Department and availed the concession separately for the financial years 2005-06 to 2006-07. 2. The Department contended that both the units are not eligible to avail the concessional rate of duty separately and a show-cause notice No.19/2006 dated 4.4.2006 and No.60/2006 dated 15.12.2006 were issued to the appellant proposing clubbing the clearances of both units for the purpose of limiting the concessional rate of duty to a quantity of 3500 MTs of kraft paper during a year. The show-cause notice proposed recovery of duty short paid along with interest wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iven by statutory authorities like PF, ESI Department, license issued by the Factories and Boilers Department. Central Excise department also have given them separate registrations. The appellant submitted that in their own case, the learned Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No.02 and 03/2008 dated 15.1.2008 has allowed the benefit of Notification No.6/2002-CE for subsequent period. Further, the appellants contended that the demand in respect of appeal No.998/2006 is completely barred by limitation. The appellants have cited the following case laws in furtherance of their submissions: * CCE, Madurai vs. Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Ltd.: 2005 (179) ELT 161 (Tri.-Chennai) * Approved in CCE, Madurai vs. Amaravathi SV Paper Mills Ltd.: 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oing by the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases, we find that Exemption Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 cannot be denied to Units 1 and 2 of the appellant as it is established that they are distinct and separate factories. 5.1 We find that the intention of the Notification was to extend benefit to the paper and paperboard manufactured in a factory and not to the manufacturer as a whole. Going by the facts of the case, we find that 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. We also find that this case is squarely covered by Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of Ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
