TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted the procedure in its right spirit when some procedural accommodation is prescribed and there is no risk to the Revenue. Appeal filed by the appellant to that extent is required to be allowed - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Rajhans Pressings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV [2011 (4) TMI 1046 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Whether appellant was required to discharge duty on Lead Ingot manufactured in Unit-I when sent to its Unit-II across the road? - Held that: - once appellant’s appeal on common registration is admissible then both the units are treated as one assessee and no duty on intermediate stages are required to be paid when duty is paid on the end products - the duty paid by Unit-I of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority in the year 2008. The order passed by the Adjudicating authority was agitated by the appellant before CESTAT and Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for remand proceedings regarding common registration denied to the appellant. In the remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority has again rejected the request of the appellant under Order-in-Original dated 25-3-2014 against which the present Appeal No. E/53578/2014 has been filed. 2. The other two appeals filed by the appellant are with respect to confirmation of demands against the appellant on the ground that duty was required to be paid by the appellant while sending lead ingots to Unit-II. 3. Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable as both Unit I and II of the appellant will be treated as one manufacturing factory. It was also his case that even if Unit No. I is made to pay Central Excise duty the same will be admissible as Cenvat credit to Unit II and the entire exercise will be Revenue neutral. Ld. Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument that Revenue neutrality itself has been held to be reason for allowing appeals and accordingly appeals filed by the appellant are required to be allowed. (i) PTC Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of C.E., Jaipur-I - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 1046 (Tri.-Del.) (ii) Commr. of C. Ex. Customs, Vadodara-II v. Indeos ABS Ltd. - 2010 (254) E.L.T. 628 (Guj.) (iii) Commr. of C. Ex., Raigad v. Castrol Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The issues involved in the present proceedings are as follows : (i) Whether appellant are eligible to a common Central Excise registration for their two units situated across a road? (ii) Whether appellant was required to discharge duty on Lead Ingot manufactured in Unit-I when sent to its Unit-II across the road? 6. So far issue of common registration in concerned appellant s request has been rejected by the Adjudicating authority on the grounds that both the units are functioning in an independent manner and are manufacturing different products and has no interlinkage of manufacturing activity. That the raw materials of both the units are also different. It is also the finding of the adjudicating authority that CBEC instructi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary in each case. The Commissioner has to decide the issue case by case. 6.1 In the case of Rajhans Pressings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV (supra) CESTAT, Delhi held as follows in Para 10. The moulds and dies manufactured at premises-II is required for manufacturing activity at premises-I and such goods are being used in premises-I and not for sale to any independent buyers. So the observation of the Commissioner that the manufacturing processes at the two plots are not interconnected is wrong. Further, there is no condition that such registration can be given only if the products manufactured in one of the factories is not final products but only intermediate products. In fact what is intermediate pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that once appellant s appeal on common registration is admissible then both the units are treated as one assessee and no duty on intermediate stages are required to be paid when duty is paid on the end products. 7.1 It is also the case of the appellant that even if both the units are taken separately then also duty is not payable by virtue of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules. It is observed from the case records that Adjudicating authority has held that Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable as appellant s Unit-I is not taking Cenvat Credit. It is observed that Adjudicating authority in Para 4.1(ii) of the Order-in-Original dated 23-4-2014 has clearly noted the fact stated by the appellant that Cenvat Credit is take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
