9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Chapter 54". The appellant availed the benefit of this Notification No. which also permits availing of cenvat credit on the inputs. Appellant is having three premises namely P.F.Y. Division, Jolwa, D.T. Division Jolwa and D/W Division Vareli. The division at Jolwa have a common boundary wall but the third premises is 4.5 Kms. away from Jolwa. P.F.Y. Division is engaged in the manufacture of POY which is used as raw material by D.T. Division and the materials produced by D.T. Division as well as P.F.Y. Division are used by the division at Vareli. The appellants had sought separate registrations for the three units which was rejected by Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner and the matter reached the Tribunal and this Tribunal vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the same and even though different orders have been passed, all of them are passed on the same ground, stay petitions filed by the appellants as well as applications for early hearing are considered together and a common order is being passed. 2. The application for early hearing of stay has become infructuous since the application for early hearing as well as stay petitions have been listed together and stay petitions are being taken up for consideration today. Accordingly, the applications for early hearing of stay are rejected as infructuous. 3. Even though very detailed orders have been passed on various grounds, the issue involved is simple and after considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been issued, the factory has to be treated as one and the same. As against this, learned advocate relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Limited - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 1035 (Tri. -Del.) and G.H. Singhvi & Ors. - 2004 (64) RLT 84 (CESTAT) = 2004 (171) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal). In the case of Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Limited, Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Limited have claimed exemption under notification No. 35/95-C.E. amended. The appellants had bifurcated their factories into two factories as separating their dying unit from the spinning unit prior to the amendment of Notification No. 35/95-C.E. The Tribunal held that benefit of notification can not be denied, even if the factories ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
