Integrated manufacturing activity supports common excise registration despite separation by a railway line under the applicable notification.

Common Central Excise registration was considered for two manufacturing units of the same manufacturer separated by a railway line. The units were treated as one integrated manufacturing operation because molasses moved directly from the sugar unit to the distillery for further manufacture. The relevant notification permitting single registration for premises separated by a public road, railway line or canal, subject to proper accountal and conditions, was applied, while the contrary notification on separate registration was not treated as controlling on these facts. Prior Tribunal decisions supporting common registration despite physical separation were followed. The refusal of a single registration for both units was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether common Central Excise registration could be granted for two units of the same manufacturer when the units were separated by a railway line, and whether the refusal of such registration was justified under the applicable notifications.

Analysis: The activity of manufacture was held to be one integrated operation. The separation of the sugar unit and the distillery unit by a railway line did not alter the essential character of the manufacturing process, especially when molasses produced in one unit was directly transferred to the other for further manufacture of excisable goods. The decision also relied on the principle reflected in the relevant notification permitting single registration for premises of the same factory separated by a public road, railway line or canal, subject to proper accountal and conditions. The contrary notification requiring separate registration for different premises was not treated as controlling on these facts. Prior Tribunal decisions allowing common registration despite physical separation were followed.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant a common excise registration was unjustified. The appellant was entitled to a single registration for both units.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two premises of the same manufacturer constitute one integrated manufacturing activity and goods move directly from one premises to the other for further manufacture, physical separation by a railway line does not by itself preclude common excise registration if the governing notification permits such registration subject to prescribed conditions.

---