9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctured, as per their statement, in the new factory, paper and paper board, were exempt from payment of excise duty in respect of first clearances of 3500 MT in a year in terms of Notfn. No. 6/2000 dt. 1-3-2000 entry No. 77 read with condition of No. 15. During the financial year 2000-2001, the period of dispute in this appeal, the appellants said to have claimed and cleared 3500 MT, without payment of duty, in respect of each of the two factories and in excess of 3500 MT they were to pay the duty. 2. The department launched proceedings by issue of a show cause notice dt. 6-11-2001 alleging inter alia as follows :- a. they had already established a factory for manufacture of paperhoard. b. &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the establishment of the plants and the premises which existed continuous to be the same even today except construction of a wall. (8) The two plants belong to the same company i.e. Cosboard Industries Limited situated on common plot of land i e. plot no. 7. Apart from the above, it appears that application for separate registration on the ground of separate premises for separate plants were made and simultaneously registration from the Chief Inspector of Factories was obtained separately for the two plants only when the aggregate value of clearances of the parent factory was about to exceed the limit of quantity based exemption granted by Notification No. 6/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re exempt since their clearances did not exceed 3500 MTs from October 2000 to March 2001. c. Accordingly, clearances of paper effected during October 2000 to March 2001, by the existing board unit - I have escaped assessment. Such paper weighing 1497.485 valued at Rs. 2,50,92,783.34 attracts duty, @ 16%, an amount of Rs. 40,14,845.00. After giving credit for Rs. 1,21,000/- paid by them, the demand is reduced to Rs. 38,92,945/-. d. Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- is confirmed. 4. The dispute in short in this question concerns the interpretation of notification 6/2000 entry No. 77 as per condition No. 15 while the appellants are contesting the clearance from two mills separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e no inter-linkages in the processes of the two units. He has accordingly appreciated that, registration is concerned with premises, while existence of a factory is independent of registration. In other words, registration does not bring about or create a factory. On pages 25 & 26 of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has observed that, Orissa sales tax authorities have commonly assessed our company, but they have separately recorded the sales figures of the two factories. Accordingly, he agrees that, since 1996-97, the factories have existed as separate unit. However, on pages 31 & 32, the learned Commissioner has placed importance upon construction of a boundary wall to separate the two factories, and thereby create two separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparate unit notwithstanding. The factory has been defined under the Central Excise Act and a factory needs registration and that definition and Rules would prevail over the concepts under the other law for a separate factory. 8. Since a 'registration' has been granted w.e.f. 25-9-2000, to the new unit, hived out of earlier existing unit, we cannot find any objection of 3500 MTs to this new unit, recognised by such 'registration' effected under the Central Excise Law, when that is not under challenge before us. 9. As regards the earlier unit, we find, no case for the appellants to contest the findings as arrived at by the ld. Commissioner for charging them duty from the date as per the impugned order. The earlier unit clearances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
