Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (1) TMI 150

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... illery unit (wherein ethyl alcohol and fusel oil were manufactured) were comprised in the same premises. In January, 2001, the appellants applied to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise and the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise for a common registration for all the above excisable goods by way of incorporation of ethyl alcohol and fusel oil in the certificate of registration relating to sugar and molasses. The Superintendent of Central Excise acceded to this request and, by letter dated 16-3-2001, informed the appellants that their 1994 registration had been merged with 1992 registration and accordingly their revised ground plan of the factory had been approved. Shortly thereafter, the appellants, to their dismay, received a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fter having found that the sugar and distillery units were in the same factory premises. He had also approved the revised ground plan submitted by the appellants. It was without giving the party any opportunity of being heard and without stating any reason whatsoever that the Superintendent cancelled his earlier decision. Hence the party's representation to the higher authorities. As per the decision of the Commissioner as communicated to the appellants by the Asstt. Commissioner, the two units have been found to be in separate premises. Ld. Counsel submits that this finding of fact is erroneous inasmuch as the Superintendent had approved the revised ground plan of the factory, and recorded a finding that the sugar and distillery units were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... missioner appears to have held the view that, in the light of the Bombay High Court's decision in Jenson Nicholson (I) Ltd. (supra), the appellants are liable to maintain separate registration for the two units. 7. On a perusal of the Bombay High Court's judgment, I find that it cannot be applied to the present case for reasons recorded in Para 4 of the above Final Order. The two units of the appellants are working in the same factory premises as per the approved revised plan. They have been allotted a common PAN by the Income Tax Department, which means the two units have common income tax assessment. The appellants have stated in their representations to the Asstt. Commissioner that their two units were filing trade tax returns .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates