Separate Central Excise registrations upheld where distinct factory units and exemption eligibility made revenue-loss concerns irrelevant.

Separate Central Excise registrations were considered available where each factory had a distinct existence, separate entry and exit points, and independent operational facilities. The assessee had earlier obtained common registration only to secure benefit under an exemption notification, and later sought to revert to separate registrations for the three units. Refusal on the ground that revenue collections might fall was treated as irrelevant, because revenue considerations could not defeat a statutory notification benefit otherwise available. The respondent was therefore held entitled to separate registrations, and the challenge to that refusal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to separate Central Excise registrations for the three factories and, on that basis, to revert from common registration to separate registration for availing the exemption under the relevant notifications.

Analysis: The factories had been separately registered for many years and the common registration had been obtained only at the assessee's request to obtain the benefit of an earlier notification. When the assessee later sought to revert to separate registrations, the record showed that the units had distinct existence, separate entry and exit points, and independent operational facilities. The reasoning that separate registration should be denied because revenue collections might decline was held to be irrelevant, since the law could not be denied on revenue considerations where the notification benefit was otherwise available.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to separate registrations, and the refusal based on revenue loss was unsustainable; the appeal failed.

---