TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt’s factory as consisting of two units Unit I for which the central excise registration has been issued and Unit II for which the appellant have claimed exemption from obtaining registration. In respect of Unit I, the appellant has paid the duty and cleared the goods for export under rebate claim. In respect of Unit II, full duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. has been claimed. - the term ‘factory’ and ‘industrial unit’ have to be interpreted keeping in view the Central Excise Department’s practice to treat each section or part of a factory manufacturing different commodity as separate manufacturing units for purpose of L-4 licence and that each section or part of the factory is to be treated as separate industrial unit. Therefore, the word ‘industrial unit’ cannot be used in the sense of a factory as a factory may have more than one industrial units. The duty exemption under the exemption Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. is in respect of the goods cleared from an “industrial unit”. Thus it is very much possible for an assessee manufacturing different products located in the area specified under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. to claim exemption in respect of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the appellant company (Unit II) for denying the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. for the period from April, 2008 to September, 2012 and the demand of duty amounting to ₹ 15,53,51,956/- along with interest thereon under Section 11AB and also for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. 1.2 The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 28-2-2014 by which he denied the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. to Unit II of the appellant company and accordingly, he confirmed the above mentioned duty demand against Unit II along with interest thereon under Section 11AB and imposed penalty of ₹ 10,81,06,485/- on them under Section 11AC on the appellant company and also imposed penalty of ₹ 10 lakh, ₹ 5 Lakh, ₹ 1 Lakh and ₹ 50,000/- on Shri H.S. Banga, Partner, Shri Daleep Suneja, an employee, Shri Naveen Kumar Maheshwari (Head Finance Accounts) and Shri Baljeet Singh Rawat, Authorised Signatory under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 1.3 Against this order of the Commissioner, these appeals along with stay application have been filed by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products being manufactured in one part of the factory and pay duty in respect of the some other goods being manufactured in other section of the factory, that the appellant had been issued a separate central excise registration in respect of Unit I and in any case, since all the facts were known to the department, there is no justification for invoking extended period of limitation and imposing penalty under Section 11AC, that in the circumstance of the case, there was absolutely no justification for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 on Shri H.S. Banga, the Partner and Shri Daleep Suneja and Shri Naveen Kumar Maheshwari, the employees, that the appellants have strong, prima facie case in their favour and hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeals and recovery thereof may be stayed. 4. Shri Pramod Kumar, ld. Departmental Representative, opposed the stay applications by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order and pleaded that in the declaration filed by Unit II for exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., the unit has mentioned its location at Plot No. 4, 16 and 17 of the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject to certain conditions, one of which is that the manufacturer for availing of this exemption will have to file a declaration in the prescribed form to the Central Excise Authorities with a copy to the Range Superintendent, giving certain particulars and the exemption would be available only from the date of filing of the declaration. There is no dispute that there are two units in a factory and both the units manufacturing Automobile parts but different parts. The appellant company, however, has obtained central excise registration in respect of the Unit I and the site plan enclosed with the registration certificate shows the location of the Unit I as well as Unit II. The appellant in respect of the Unit II have filed the required declaration for availing exemption Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. on 21-4-2008 and in respect of Unit II, they have also filed a declaration for exemption from obtaining registration and thus, while in respect of Unit II, there is no central excise registration, in respect of Unit II the department has issued a separate central excise registration. Thus, the department itself has treated the appellant s factory as consisting of two units Unit I for whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
