Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Versus M/s. Nachiketa Papers Ltd., Shri Vijay Mittal, Director And Shri Ajay Goyal, Director

2016 (1) TMI 734 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 authority also relied on the Central Excise registration given to these units separa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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 Respondent : Shri B L Narasimhan, Advocate ORDER Per B Ravichandran: There are four .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ucts 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 located on the same plot. Only one pulper was installed in unit 2. whereas th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded 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 of various mutual usage of infrastructure for manufacture and commonality of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ommercial 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 from the previous notifications No. 138/86-CE effective upto 28.2.84. Earli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 reiterating their points in writing as per cross objection, pleaded that origina .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lls [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 as together. 7. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. 8. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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, printability submission etc. Above all, it is not disputed that they have separa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version