Common excise registration for adjoining units hinges on whether separate premises function as one factory, not on a single factor alone.

Separate central excise registration is the general rule, but the registration scheme permits common registration where adjoining premises are in substance part of the same factory and are divided only by a public road, canal or railway line. Board guidelines treat interlinked manufacture as an important indicator, while factors such as common raw materials, electricity, labour, administration, sales tax registration and income-tax assessment are illustrative, not exhaustive. A finding that units were not interlinked merely because one unit's product was used in the other was inconsistent with those guidelines. The rejection of common registration was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on the full documentary record.

---

---

Issues: Whether two manufacturing units separated by a public road were entitled to common central excise registration under the registration rules, the notifications issued thereunder, and the Board's guidelines on interlinked processes.

Analysis: Separate registration is the general rule, but the scheme of the notifications issued under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules permits common registration where separate premises are in substance part of the same factory and are segregated only by a public road, canal or railway line. The Board's guidelines treat interlinked manufacture as a significant indicator, but the listed factors such as common raw materials, electricity, labour, administration, sales tax registration and income-tax assessment are illustrative and not exhaustive. The finding that the units were not interlinked merely because the product of one unit was used in the other was inconsistent with those guidelines. Since relevant documentary material had not been examined by the original authority, the matter required reconsideration on the full record.

Conclusion: The order rejecting common registration was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after giving the appellant an opportunity to produce the relevant evidence.

---