TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal goods from one premises of the appellant registered as his factory to the another premises across the road sought to be registered together with the first premises for which registration, permission is denied by the department - appellant submits that equipment were being shifted to appellant’s own premises for own manufacturing activities the appellant was under the impression that there was no requirement to reverse Cenvat credit taken when such goods were received into their factory at Premises-I. Appellant submits that there was no undue advantage accruing to them and they had no intention to evade any duty – Held that:- no intention to evade payment of duty, because the appellant was eligible for taking a combined registration for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected the request of the appellant s application dated 16-4-2008 and follow up letter dated 3-6-2008 seeking a combined registration for their existing registered premises at Plot No. 5, NH-2, NIT, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as Premises- I ) and Plot No. 1, NH-2 NIT Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as Premises-II ) which are separated by a public road. The appellant had submitted that both the premises are different parts of the same factory holding the same PAN and same Sales Tax/VAT Registration, having common administration and common work force. The appellant had represented that the appellant is eligible for common registration as per para 3.2 of Chapter 2 of the Central Excise Manual issued by C.B.E.C. 4. The adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y duty on tools and dies manufactured in Premises-II and clear it to the factory at Premises-I they can take Cenvat credit of duty so paid and the whole exercise will be revenue neutral. 7. The ld. DR on the other hand argues that the products manufactured at Premises-II are final products themselves and there is no reason to give common registration. 8. Considered arguments on both sides. 9. Para 3.2 of Chapter 2 of C.B.E.C. s Excise Manual for Supplementary Instructions is relevant in the matter. The same is reproduced below :- 3.2 Separate registration is required in respect of separate premises except in cases where two or more premises are actually part of the same factory (where processes are interlined), but are segregated b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturing facilities of individual manufacturers and there is no clear rule to define such products. What is final product for one factory is quite often starting point for another factory. Taking the present case itself, the manufacturer may place order on another manufacturer to make tools and dies needed by him or make it himself. In the present case the appellant has opted for the latter option and there is no provision in excise rules to discourage such activity. If a common registration is given the appellant does not save any incidence of taxation but only saves some work of maintaining separate records and filing separate returns. 11. The two factories at Premises-I and Premises-II satisfy the parameters at (2), (4), (5), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rement to reverse Cenvat credit taken when such goods were received into their factory at Premises-I. Appellant submits that there was no undue advantage accruing to them and they had no intention to evade any duty. The appellant argues that if at all the appellant was to reverse any duty at the time of shifting, the appellant would have been eligible to take credit of such reversed credit for the factory at Premises-II and the whole exercise would have been revenue neutral. It is argued that the whole matter is just a procedural irregularity of not applying for including the new premises in their registered premises. It is further argued that since this is only a procedural irregularity the substantive right of the Appellant to avail of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding of the lower authority is proper. 17. Considered arguments on both sides. 18. We notice that there is an infraction of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as capital goods on which credit was taken has been removed from the registered premises without reversing the credit taken. However, in this infraction we do not find any intention to evade payment of duty, because the appellant was eligible for taking a combined registration for both the premises and if such combined registration was taken there would have been no infraction of any law. In view of the order passed by us in Appeal No. 1687/2008, no short payment of duty subsists as on today. In the circumstances there is no case for demand of duty with penalty un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
