https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211514 Common central excise registration was held to be available where two premises, though divided by a public road, functioned as one factory through interlinked manufacturing, common inputs, labour, administration and tax registration; refusal of combined registration was therefore unsustainable. Removal of capital goods from one registered premises to another without reversing Cenvat credit breached Rule 3(5) on its face, but once combined registration was recognised and no intent to evade duty was shown, the duty demand and penalty could not stand. The consequential demand and penal action were set aside. en-us Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211514 Common central excise registration was held to be available where two premises, though divided by a public road, functioned as one factory through interlinked manufacturing, common inputs, labour, administration and tax registration; refusal of combined registration was therefore unsustainable. Removal of capital goods from one registered premises to another without reversing Cenvat credit breached Rule 3(5) on its face, but once combined registration was recognised and no intent to evade duty was shown, the duty demand and penalty could not stand. The consequential demand and penal action were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211514