Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (1) TMI 806 - CESTAT, MUMBAISSI Exemption - Clubbing of turnover of two or more companies - common storage tank - financial flow back of funds - non-existence of a concrete wall between the two companies - held that:- as both the units are having separate directors, separately registered with Registrar of Companies, separate sales tax registration, income tax, bank account, and separate lease deed with MIDC and are having separate premises also. In that event the clearance of both units cannot be clubbed. SSI - Exemption under Notification 8/2000 and 9/2000 - The appellants has been able to produce the certificate issued by MIDC certifying that the factory of the appellants is located outside the limit of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and comes within the village Digdoh - The Commissioner denied the benefit to the appellants holding that MIDC is a notified area where the factory of the appellants are located is the area notified by MIDC - it is clear that “notified area committee” is used in conjunction with the term municipality - Revenue fails to give the correct interpretation to “municipal corporation” as the municipalities has been defined in part 9 of the Constitution of India which defines municipal area as territorial area of the municipality as notified by the governor - Article 243(g) of the Constitution of India defines the term “village” as a village specified by the Governor by publishing Notification to be village. The terms “municipal corporation”/”village” are having concerns with the Land Revenue Authorities and the same are notified by the Governor from time to time on the basis of census - The “MIDC” cannot be equated with “Municipal Corporation - Thus, the certificate issued by various authorities which certified that the area in which the factory is located is within limit of village Digdoh, Taluka Hingna, district Nagpur - Hence, do not have any hesitation to hold that the factory of the appellants is located in a rural area - Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of SSI Notification 8/2000 and 9/2000 - As the appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification 8/2000 and 9/2000 as SSI Notification, are not required to go into the issue is using the brand name of others, as the appellants succeeded on this ground only.
|