9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Evidence cannot lead to conclusion that the factories set up at different point of time by different legal entities can be treated as a single factory. – Exemption available – revenue appeal rejected - E/607, 1067/2005 and 3188/2006 - 351-353/2009-EX(PB), - Dated:- 23-4-2009 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Cross Objection No. E/CO/95/2005 REPRESENTED BY : Shri Virender Chaudhary, DR, for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (Oral)]. - These three appeals by the Department are on the same issue relating to the same respondents and cover different periods. The cross-objection 95/05 is related to Excise Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. In other words, the manufacturing facility started in 1981 by erstwhile Satya Paper Mills, and manufacturing facility of Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. started in 1996 and manufacturing facility of erstwhile R.C. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. started in 1992 came under the ownership of one company from December, 2000. 5. It would also be appropriate to recapitulate the changes in the nature/basis of exemptions granted to paper and paper products over the years. By Notification No. 138/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 exemption was being granted with reference to a manufacturer. In other words, if a manufacturer was having more than one unit/factory/manufacturing facility, exemption was available for an overall fixed quantity by the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the definition of the terms "factory" and "manufacturer" in the Excise Act. He also submits that there were transfer of funds from one unit to another unit and therefore they have to be treated only as one factory and not different factories. In other words, they should be treated only as three different units of same factory. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 73 wherein in the light of the definition of Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, the claim of the party to treat two premises as different factories has been rejected for the purpose of considering the benefit of Notification No. 67/95. He also relied on the decision of the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From the records, we find that, the manufacturing facility started in 1981 by erstwhile Satya Paper Mills, and manufacturing facility of Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. started in 1996 and manufacturing facility of erstwhile R.C. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. started in 1992 came under the ownership of one company from December, 2000. We are in agreement with the findings of the Commissioner that what was claimed as units and not factories by the department were started at different points by different legal entities. The investigation has been commenced in January, 2001 after all the three units/factories have come under a common ownership after the amalgamation in 2000. Therefore finding of certain records of erstwhile company/firm in the premises of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Department. The staff is separate, their management is separate. It is also not the case of revenue that end product of one factory is raw material for the other factory. From the above facts it is apparent that there is no commonality between the two factories, both are separate establishments run by separate Managers though at the apex level it is maintained by the appellant company. There are separate staff, separate finished goods. Simply because both the factories may have common boundaries that will not make it one factory. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be well-founded and likewise, the view taken by the Commissioner, Central Excise. Accordingly, we allow both these appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation.' 17. Since we have already found that the appellants have acted in conscious disregard of their statutory obligations and deliberately suppressed material facts the above contention can neither be accepted nor the above-quoted passage pressed into service." It is appropriate to note that in the said case, goods manufactured in one unit were being used in the other unit and said that the facts were suppressed by the assessee. 9.4 In view of the above, we are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
