Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 619 - CESTAT MUMBAIConsidering separate premises as single factory - Why the parties grouped against each serial number should not be regarded as constituting the same factory for the purpose of Notification No. 253/82 (earlier Notification No. 80/76) by the virtue of the facts that one unit is power operated and other is non power operated unit? - Held that: - the issue involved in the present appeals have already been settled in this Tribunal’s judgment reported as Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex., Pune Vs. Swastik Dyeing & Bleaching Factory 2004 [2003 (12) TMI 206 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] where it was held that the Notification under reference viz. 253/82-C.E. will never apply, for the reason that the exemption conferred by N/N. 253/82-C.E. is applicable only if bleaching, dyeing or printing is carried on in one premises (factory) and the calendering in another premises (factory). If according to the department bleaching/dyeing/calendering are one integrated process and different premises where these activities are undertaken will therefore render these premises one factory, then no one will be able to comply with the proviso to N/N. 253/82-C.E. and Notification will be rendered nugatory. All the units under reference are separate factories and are not the precincts nor the part of the same premises - The various factors such as common management common administration, common sharing of water, job work transactions amongst them, close relationship amongst the partners etc. including the so-called operational unity are entirely irrelevant for the determination of the issue involved. The benefit of N/N. 80/76-C.E. as amended and/or 253/82-C.E. cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|