9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant is engaged in manufacture of various products in seven of its factories situated in different premises, each of them duly and separately registered with the Central Excise Department. Out of the seven factories, two factories which are relevant for the purpose of these appeals are : (i) Paper Board Factory and (ii) Specialty Paper Factory. The paper board division is situated in Shed No. 1, Narela Road, Kundli and engaged in manufacture of duplex board independently with its own set of plant and machinery, staff and workers, raw material and utilities like electricity, water etc. Specialty Paper Factory is situated in Shed No. 3, Narela Road, Kundli and engaged in manufacture of paper independently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued to the Paper Board Factory and the Specialty Paper Factory were premises specific as stipulated under Rule 174(3) which reads as under : "Every registration certificate granted shall be in the specified form and shall be valid only for the premises specified in such certificate." 3. The registration carried out certain conditions also like, that it is valid only for the premises and purposes specified in the schedule and for no other purposes and premises; it is not transferable and no correction will be admissible in the certificate unless attested by the Superintendent, Central Excise and the certificate shall remain valid till the holder carries on the activity for which the certificate has been issued or surrenders the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is of issuance of the show cause notice was on the ground that both the factories are in the common premises and common balance-sheet is maintained and owned by the same company. The issue was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-III and duty was claimed in sum of Rs. 50,25,117.00 under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and penalty of Rs. 5 lacs. Aggrieved against this order, two appeals were preferred before the Tribunal and the Tribunal affirmed the order. Hence, the present appeals by way of special leave. 6. The question that arises for consideration in both these appeals is whether both these factories are one or they are separate. The Tribunal by its order dated June 7, 2002, affirmed the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal passed on June 7, 2002 as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi-III on September 28, 2001 in both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
