https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50427 Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was available where molasses manufactured in one unit was used to make chemicals in another unit located in the same factory premises. The statutory definition of "factory" under Section 2(e) covered the whole premises, so separate central excise registrations under Rule 174 did not, by themselves, create different factories. The exemption could not be denied merely because the units were separately registered when the excisable goods were used within the same factory for captive consumption. Authorities cited on the meaning of "industrial unit" or on different factual settings were distinguished as inapplicable. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 15:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50427 Notification No. 67/95-C.E. was available where molasses manufactured in one unit was used to make chemicals in another unit located in the same factory premises. The statutory definition of "factory" under Section 2(e) covered the whole premises, so separate central excise registrations under Rule 174 did not, by themselves, create different factories. The exemption could not be denied merely because the units were separately registered when the excisable goods were used within the same factory for captive consumption. Authorities cited on the meaning of "industrial unit" or on different factual settings were distinguished as inapplicable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50427