Common factory registration allowed where integrated operations outweighed a separate electricity connection and supported unity of premises.

CBEC supplementary instructions treat separate registration as the general rule, but permit common registration for two factory premises forming one factory and separated by a public road, canal or railway line. The listed indicators are not exhaustive, and all need not be present if the overall facts support unity of operations. On the facts, common raw materials, interlinked use of goods, a common labour force, common administration, common sales tax and income tax registration, and a common balance sheet supported single registration. A separate electricity connection alone was not enough to deny common registration, so the refusal was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to single registration for two factory premises separated by a public road under the CBEC supplementary instructions.

Analysis: Paragraph 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the CBEC supplementary instructions treats separate registration as the norm, but permits common registration where two premises are ly part of the same factory and are segregated by a public road, canal or railway line. The indicators listed in the instructions are not exhaustive, and it is not necessary that every factor must be present. On the facts, the two units had common raw materials, interlinked use of goods, common labour force, common administration, common sales tax registration, common income tax assessment and a common balance sheet. A separate electricity connection by itself was insufficient to deny registration when the other relevant factors were satisfied.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to single registration, and the refusal was unsustainable.

---