9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Superintendent that it was putting up a synthetic yarn spinning unit in the name of Mahabir Syntex (a unit of Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd.) at Sahjanwa, and ground plan for the project was also enclosed. Accordingly, on 26th Feb. 1998, a registration certificate for manufacture of synthetic yarn was issued by the Superintendent to the appellant in the name of Mahabir Syntex (a unit of Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd.) at Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur. The yarn spinning machinery was installed in the existing premises of the jute manufacturing factory. 2. Appellant received LDO, a modvatable input, between 31-3-2000 and 27-1-2001 in their factory at Sahjanwa, and took Modvat credit. This LDO was used in the generation of electricity, in generators whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturing facility and that Central Excise registration is no basis for determining whether the yarn manufacturing facility is a separate factory or a separate entity. Learned counsel has also pointed out that, subsequently, Central Excise authorities themselves issued one combined licence on 21-4-2002 for the factory for the manufacture of both jute products and 100% polyester yarn. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the earlier issuance of two Central Excise registrations, separately for each product, in no way, changed the legal standing of the factory and the manufacturer of the unit. In regard to the claim for Modvat credit, the learned counsel has taken us to the provisions of Rule 57AB and has contended that rule specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the ground plan makes it clear that both lines of production are situated in the same factory 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. 8. Coming to the 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 cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
