TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises and the generators are supplying electricity to both the lines of production. In this legal and factual situation, the finding in the order that the two units are separate entities cannot be upheld. Claim for Modvat credit , the specific provision in the Rule is for a manufacturer to take credit of duty paid on any input received in the factory . As we have already noted, there is only one manufacturer with two lines of production and one factory. Therefore, credit originally taken by the appellant was entirely in terms of the Rule and the lower authorities were in error in directing the appellant to return the credit amount. Thus, the appeal succeeds and is allowed after setting aside the impugned order. Credit which was returned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orming that since the generator is installed in the approved licence premises of Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. which was in existence for long and not in the approved premises of M/s. Mahabir Syntex, the credit is not admissible. The letter also noted that the generator did not belong to M/s. Mahabir Syntex and it belonged to M/s. Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. The appellant deposited the credit taken on 24th and 26th November 2001 under protest and filed a refund application on 24th July, 2002. That refund application was rejected by the lower authorities, upon a finding that M/s. Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. and Mahabir Syntex are two separate entities and for that reason the credit is not available. The present appeal challenges that finding. 4. The conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, there is nothing in the CENVAT rules contrary to the appellant taking credit in respect of the inputs used in that factory for manufacture of excisable goods. Learned counsel has also referred to a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. C.C.E., Meerut - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 73 in support of its contention that several registrations under Central Excise Rules would not make one factory different factories. 6. Learned DR, however, would contend that appellant had a unit for jute manufacturing and a separate entity for manufacture of polyester yarn was set up and both were separately licensed (excise). He has also pointed out that generators in question, having been purchased earlier in the name of Mahabir Jute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
