Common central excise registration upheld where two units operated from the same premises under common management and filings.

Rule 174(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 requires separate registration only where there are more than one distinct premises. As both manufacturing units operated from the same factory premises under a common approved plan, common management, common staff and common tax filings, separate registration was not attracted. The court accepted the line of authorities supporting common registration on these facts and sustained the Tribunal's direction for a single registration. The issue of Modvat credit utilisation was treated as consequential.

---

---

Issues: Whether, where two manufacturing units function in the same factory premises under a common approved plan and common management, separate registration was required under Rule 174(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the Tribunal was right in directing issuance of a single registration.

Analysis: Rule 174(3) applies only when there are more than one premises, meaning distinct premises requiring separate registration. On the facts, both units operated from the same premises, had a common PAN, common trade-tax filings and common management and staff. The requirement of separate registration was therefore not attracted. The reliance placed on earlier decisions supporting common registration in such a factual setting was accepted. The question relating to utilization of Modvat credit was treated as consequential.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to a common registration, and the Tribunal's order granting single registration was sustained.

---