9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Rakesh Kumar Member (T) Shri. Ravi Raghvan, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri. V. K. Agarwal, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per Rakesh Kumar Member (T)] - This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No.33/Commissioner/04 dt.6.10.04 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Bhubaneswar-II by which the Commissioner, denying the benefit of exemption Notification No.13/2000-CE dt.1.3.2000 to the appellant for the period from 2000-2001 to 2002-03, confirmed duty demand of Rs.62,14,313/- against them under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act alongwith interest on this duty at the applicable rate as per the provisions of Section 11AB of the Act and besides this also imposed penalty of equal amount on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the units the sponge iron unit and the billet unit are located in the same premises within the same compound wall with common entry and exist and both are owned by the same company i.e. M/s Orissa Songe Iron Ltd. There is also no dispute about the fact that in May-04, the appellant applied to the Jurisdictional Central Excise Supdt. for a common registration certificate after surrendering the registration certificate in the name of Osil Steel Works and the Jurisdictional Central Excise Supdt. Vide his letter dt.20.5.94 informed that the Asstt. Commissioner has accepted the surrender of registration certificate issued in the name of Osil Steel Works and has allotted a common registration for both the products. There is also no dispute a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cited wherein it was held that a number of different plants manufacturing different excisable goods in the same premises would constitute one factory and their separate registration under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules would not mean that they are different factories. It was also pleaded that prior to March-2000 i.e. during the period from Sept-97 to March-2000 when compounded levy system for iron steel products was the vogue and duty was required to be paid under Section 3A, the appellants were discharging duty under Section 3 of Central Excise Act read with Section 4 by paying duty on ad valorem basis, as the Department was treating them as integrated steel plant and hence not eligible for operation under Section 3A of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al excise registration and, therefore, the same cannot be treated as manufactured in an integrated steel plant. The same plea has been made in the memorandum of cross objection filed by the respondent. 3. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the plant manufacturing sponge iron from iron ore and the plant manufacturing billets from sponge iron are situated in a common premises having a common boundary wall, the work force is common and for both the plants, there is one single registration under the Factories Act. There is common enterance and exist for the two plants situated on one piece of land within a common boundary wall. It is also not disputed that both the plants are owned by the same company - the appellant. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
