https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123555 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. en-us Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123555 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123555