2009 (1) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es, for the Appellant. Shri R.P. Meena, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - The impugned order raised demand of Rs. 63,59,864/- towards credit of duty, on capital goods installed in the premises not registered with the department as factory, along with interest under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). Equal penalty was imposed on the applicants un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rocesses are interlinked) but are segregated by public road, canal or railway-line. The fact that the two premises are part of the same factory will be decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise based on factors, such as: (1)   Interlinked process - product manufactured/produced in one premise are substantially used in other premises for manufacture of final products. (2) &....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants had not followed this procedure and had availed the credit by suppression of facts. We find that there is no dispute that the appellants carried out part of the manufacturing activity in the premises where the impugned capital goods had been installed though not registered as part of factory. The completely manufactured  goods  were cleared from the registered factory premises o....