2004 (3) TMI 162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lled a D.G. Set in their factory in Diamond-I; that they have taken Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on LDO, which is used as fuel and on the lubricating oil which is used for maintenance of the D.G. sets and also on the cleanflo which is an item used for demineralisation of the water; that a portion of the electricity, so generated in the D.G. set in Diamond-I, is supplied to Diamond-II; that the Revenue has denied Cenvat Credit on the items used as fuel for generating electricity on the ground that a portion of the electricity is supplied outside the factory; that it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., 2001 (129) E.L.T. 73 (T) that number of different plants manufacturing different excisable goods in same .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellants are having separate registration for their two units, viz., Diamond-I and Diamond-II, which goes to show that these are two separate premises; that as the electricity is supplied to the other unit, the Cenvat credit has been rightly denied to them. Regarding registration of the dealer of IOC at Jhansi, the learned D.R., submitted that the certificate now furnished by the appellants, has to be examined by the adjudicating authority. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find force in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellants that mere taking of two registration certificates separately for Diamond-I and Diamond-II, these cannot be regarded as two different factories. As per Section 2(e) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne factory area is entitled to obtain one licence instead of different licences for different commodities. Similar issue came also for consideration in the case of Rollatainers Ltd. (supra) where the appellant company were having number of units engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods in the same premises. The Tribunal has held that as paperboard division and paper division are situated in the same premises, this cannot be treated as different factories. The decision, relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), i.e. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. has been passed by the learned Single Member of the Tribunal, which is not binding on us. Further, as pointed out by the learned Advocate, the decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd., was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X