9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 210 Metric Tonnes; and (b) on or after the 1st day of April, 2000, in any subsequent financial year, up to first clearances of an aggregate quantity not exceeding 2500 Metric Tonnes. 2.2 The Commissioner, under the impugned Order, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty on the appellants on the ground that paperboard unit and paper unit are parts of a single premises belonging to same company, relying upon the decisions in the case of Graver Well (India) Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 (74) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) and Bongaigaon Refinery Petroleum Ltd. v. CCE, 1994 (69) E.L.T. 193 (Cal.) and that it is one factory and as such separate exemption to clearances made from Paper Division situated in Shed No. 3 in addition to clearances made from the other parts of the factory was not admissible. 3. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants are a company registered under the Companies Act, having number of units engaged in manufacture of excisable goods; that out of these units, two are as under : (i) Paperboard Division, Shed No. 1, Kundli. (ii) Speciality Paper Mills, Shed No. 3, Kundli. He, further, mentioned that in Paperboard Division, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se vicinity whether having the same compound or different compounds a person is entitled to apply for separate licences in respect of each place of business. He also contended that no appeal has been filed against the separate Registration given by the Department; that since the expression "premises" itself is considered as "factory" under Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, the premises where manufacture is undertaken and registration is obtained is a "factory"; that Section 2(e) does not define two separate premises of two units as a single factory, it is incorrect to club two separate registered premises as one premise for the purpose of Section 2(e). He relied upon the decision in the case of Gujurat Aluminium Extrusions (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 464 (T) wherein it has been held that merely because entire premises was shown in the ground plan and approved by the Department, will not take away the fact that the unit was independent manufacturer. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Vardhman Spg. Gen. Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 94 (T) wherein the composite unit was bifurcated, and registration deemed to have been accorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act whole premises and not the different parts thereof is a factory. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., 1988 (33) E.L.T. 509 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that in the context of "paper, cloth, textile, mill refers to a building or a group of buildings in which machinery is installed for manufacture of products which are generally manufactured in a unit of that type. A mill may contain more than one plant producing different category of goods answering to the general description of the goods manufactured in that category of mill. In the case of Paper Mills, Paper and Board are manufactured therein. In case there is one establishment in which there is paper plant and also a different plant for making board then the whole set up has to be taken as one mill. He also placed reliance on the decision in the second case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, 2001 (129) E.L.T. 73 (T) wherein it was held that "the number of registrations, in our view, will not decide the number of factories unless and until they are situated in different premises. It is very clear from the definition of the term "factory" that all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or issuing one licence in form L-4 in respect of products manufactured by them within the factory complex which was objected to by the Department. The Tribunal held that "the two units fall within the same premises within the one boundary wall encircling the entire area of land allotted to the appellants in the industrial area........ The description in the application AL-4 refers to a factory and main division or sub-division or factory where goods are manufactured. Thus it is apparent that what is contemplated is one licence in respect of one factory complex having main divisions or sub-divisions." The Tribunal, therefore, held that any person manufacturing different excisable goods within one factory area is entitled to obtain one licence in respect of the goods instead of different licence for different commodities. Again in the case of CCE, Meerut v. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., 1988 (33) E.L.T. 509, the respondents claimed benefit of Notification No. 128/77 in respect of paper as available for the installed capacity up to 2000 MT without taking into account the capacity of straw board unit installed in the same premises. The Tribunal held that the concession is available with re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
