Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2015 (326) E.L.T. 733 (Tri. - Del.) - Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE, 3/2001-CE and 6/2002 -CE denied - Revenue contended that that both the units of the respondents are located on the same plot. - Held that:- The scope of exemption hitherto available to paper mills after clubbing the clearance from more than one factory of a manufacturer as now being extended to allow the exemption to each factory separately. The original authorit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same as all the points raised in appeal have been discussed and decided by the original authority. We fully agree with the finding of the adjudicating authority for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 3754 - 3757 of 2005 - FINAL ORDER NO. 52818 - 52821 /2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 19-8-2015 - SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. B RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Pramod Kumar, Jt. CDR For the Responde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6/2002 -CE. In respect of first clearance of 2500 MT, 3500 MTS of their products from these units. The Revenue felt that benefit of exemption notifications are not available to the respondents as the two units constitute a single factory only. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents and after due process, the original authority dropped the demands. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. In appeals, Revenue contended that that both the units of the respondents are l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no boiler or laboratory and water pump in unit 2. In appeals, Revenue contended that both the units constitute a single factory in their identity for the purpose of claiming exemption. Reliance was placed on the definition of factory as per section 2 (e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was reiterated that there is inter-connected activity and operations of unit 1 and 2 as such, should constitute one factory for the purpose of claiming the exemption in terms of above notification. Existence o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ucture, they have stated that they have separate books of accounts and the commercial arrangement clearly shows that unit 1 and 2 do exists separately. Both the units have separate roll of employees, separately registered with ESI and provident fund. If any facility is not available in one of the unit, it is availed from the other unit on a purely commercial basis and on proper record. They also contended that wording of impugned notifications are now under consideration are materially different .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

decided. The Hon ble Supreme Court noted that in that case, two units were manufacturing different final products and were separately registered with the Central Excise department, the staff and management were separate though the overall management of the assessee company was same. The respondent also contested the appeals of the Revenue on the ground that substantial amount of demand is barred by limitation. 5. During the oral submission, the learned Counsel for the respondent apart from reit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Madurai vs. Rajalakshmi Paper Mills [2005 (179) ELT 161 (Tri-Chennai)]. In the said case, the Tribunal held that when the Central Excise registration is separate, Revenue cannot treat both the units as one factory for denying the concession. 6. Learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and held that material evidence of overlying parts and interconnectivity of these two units will establish that for the purpose of exemption, they should be considered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e factory. As discussed earlier, the Revenue s appeal as well as the written submissions made by the respondents, the facts established are that each unit was manufacturing different final products, have separate existence or registered industrial undertaking under Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act and Factories Act. The units were granted separate registration under Sales Tax Act. They are registered separately for ESI and PF and it maintained records for accounts, balance sheet, prin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version