TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and further strongly believes that the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is superior to the Commissioner of Central Excise. 2. The Department is in appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal which is second round of litigation on the issue of allowability of common registration to the respondent manufacturer of cement. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee was allotted a single contiguous piece of land measuring 471 acres by the Government of Rajasthan and commenced manufacturing of cement way back in 1981. The respondent assessee undertook major expansion by establishing a new grinding unit known as M/s Mangalam Grinding Unit (MGU). The MGU and the manufacturing facilities then existing were not only on the same piece of land, but it was also connected by a private road within its leased land and common boundary wall. Though there was distance of approximately 2 kms. Between the MGU and the then existing manufacturing facilities, however, it was on the same plot and there is no scope of any other third party for entry in between. Though the respondent assessee has a leased common land with common boundary wall, and a proper private road betw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevated conveyor belt which will interlink both the units and thereafter the clinker manufactured at the existing unit would be transferred internally to the new grinding unit, instead of transporting the same through truck(s) as was being done at that time. On being pointed out by the Officers to the respondent that wherever the two units are separated by a road/ canal/ railway line, the jurisdiction lies with the Commissioner of Central Excise. It also appeared to Revenue that process of both the units was still not interlinked, as construction of proposed conveyor belt was to be completed in March, 2014. Further, both the units were having separate boundary wall and there was no possibility of internal movement of the goods, on the date of inspection. Further the revised map submitted by the respondent to the Department did not show any internal gate in the boundary wall. Thus, evidently the clinker manufactured in the existing unit was required to be taken outside the registered factory premises for transfer to the new Mangalam Grinding unit. Further, the amended registration dated 06.09.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner have no indication about the new addition in the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 2,85,82,520/- is irregular and further held that cenvat credit of ₹ 1,30,748/- is irregular towards power generation. However, in concluding para, the entire cenvat credit of ₹ 1,23,91,891/- was disallowed. He also confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 4,20,251/- and interest and amount deposited of ₹ 7,04,29,992/- was appropriated against the said demand. 14. The appellant had challenged the order dated 10.07.2015 of Commissioner, before this Tribunal. 15. Subsequently, the appellant filed another refund claim of ₹ 4,14,17,480/- on 06.08.2015 on the basis of Commissioner order dated 01.07.2015 (₹ 7,00,00,000/- pre-deposit ₹ 2,85,82,520/- disallowed credit). 16. Tribunal vide its Final order dated 06.11.2015 had dismissed the appeal of Revenue against Commissioner (Appeal) s Order in appeal dated 08.01.2015 for revocation of single registration. 17. Revenue filed appeal against the said Final order of the Tribunal dated 06.11.2015 for revocation of single registration before the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan, who vide order dated 25.05.2016 had dismissed appeal of the Revenue, with following observation(s):- We do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter after following the principle of natural justice and accordingly mentioned that these proceedings are in compliance of order dated 25.05.2016. I find that it is settled legal position that once issue has been raised, same issue with a little variation in facts cannot be raised/ litigated again. I find that decision of higher authority is binding on lower authority. I find that after referring the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of E.I. Dupont India Pvt. Ltd., Board vide Circular No. 201/01/2014-CX.6 dated 26.06.2014 clarified that judgment of higher Court needs to be followed scrupulously. 5.3 Even otherwise, I find that as per Rule 9 of Central Excise Rule, 2002, every person, who manufactures excisable goods shall get registered. Further Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001, as amended, issued under Rule 9 provides that if a person has more than one premises requiring registration, separate registration certificate shall be obtained for each of such premises. A perusal of above shows that if there is one premise then only one registration is required. Only if there are more than one premises, separate registration would be required for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lies with the Commissioner of Central Excise for granting common registration where two premises are actually part of the same factory (where process are interlinked) but are segregated for canal / road or railway line. 23. Heard the parties. 24. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal and also relies on the order-in-original. 25. Opposing the appeal of Revenue learned Counsel for the respondent assessee urges that the present proceedings are ab initio bad and are hit by Doctrine of merger . Admittedly, when the Revenue raised the controversy in the middle of September, 2013 on the grant of common registration, the respondent-assessee immediately approached the jurisdictional Commissioner by their application dated 22.11.2013 and the learned Commissioner after examining the facts and on being satisfied have been pleased to grant common registration by his communication dated 31.01.2014. Thus, the issue of common registration stood concluded and settled in favour of the respondent-assessee by the order of the superior officer in rank, under the doctrine of merger . Further, the order of revocation of amendment of registration p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
