Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to one consolidated L-4 excise licence for different excisable goods manufactured within the same factory complex comprising several divisions or sub-divisions.
Analysis: The application for an L-4 licence contemplated the description of the factory premises, including its boundaries and main divisions or sub-divisions. The record showed that the different units formed part of one industrial complex within a common boundary wall and that there was only one legal entity carrying on manufacture through different divisions. The object of the licensing scheme was to permit a single licence for manufacture within one factory area, and the statutory definition of factory supported that approach. The amendment to the licence form did not alter the basic character of the premises as one factory complex.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to a consolidated licence, and the refusal to grant one was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are manufactured by the same legal entity within one factory complex comprising divisions or sub-divisions, a consolidated licence is permissible if the premises constitute one factory within the statutory definition.