2000 (5) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri A.K. Jain, DGM Excise, for the Respondent. [Order per : A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. -  These are two Revenue appeals against the Order-in-Original No. 220-CE/MRT/99, dated 31-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Ghaziabad rejecting the Revenue Appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Asistant Commissioner. 2. Arguing the appeal Shri Sumit K.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....JDR has argued that though the Order-in-Appeal mentions that both the units were separately registered, no separate RG 23 A Part I or RG 23 A Part II registers were maintained. There was infact no segregation of inputs received by the two manufacturing units. In terms of Rule 57 GG any unit claiming modvat credit needs to be registered. It is contended by the Department, that where a third party r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustries Ltd. and M/s. Flex Laminators were manufacturing units. There is nothing on record to show that this was the factual position nor have the authorities below given any such finding in their orders. The factual position was that there were initially two companies registered under the Companies Act and one of the companies M/s. Flex Laminators Ltd. were holders of Central Excise Licence. In 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e two appeals filed by the Department and for confirmation of the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and have perused the records. We are unable to find any supporting evidence to substantiate the averment in the grounds of appeal that both the units M/s. Flex Industries Ltd. and M/s. Flex Laminators - 2 were manufacturers of laminated pouches. We agree wit....