TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order. 2. Heard both sides extensively. 3.1 Appellant has one production facility known as unit No.1 at 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad manufacturing tractor parts, another known as Unit II situated at plot no.2, sector 13, Faridabad manufacturing tractors and another known as Unit III situated at plot no.3, sector 13, Faridabad manufacturing tractors. Unit No.II was engaged in the manufacture of Farmtrac Brands of Tractor whereas Unit No.III was engaged in the manufacture of Escorts & Powertract Brand Tractors. The tractors parts manufactured in Unit No1. are being sent to unit 2 and unit 3 for use in the manufacture of tractors. 3.2 Prior to 3.3.2003, the three units were operating under the name & style of M/s.Escorts Ltd. at 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad having separate registration. No.AAACE0047BXM003, M/s.Escorts Limited, plot No.2, sector 13, Faridabad having Central Excise Registration No.AAACE0074BXM004 and M/s.Escorts Limited, plot No.3, Sector 13, Faridabad having Central Excise Registration No.AAACE0074BXM002. 3.3 Prior to 9.7.04, the tractors manufactured were subject to central excise duty and the same were exempted from central e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1944; (ii) I hold that parts and accessories of Tractors cleared from Unit I at 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad to Unit II & III at Plot No.2 & 3 respectively, Sector 13, Faridabad are chargeable to appropriate Central Excise duty for he period 9.7.2004 onwards and benefit of exemption Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002, as amended and Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 is not available to the noticee. (iii) In confirm a demand of Rs.10,10,61,154/- from M/s.Escorts Limited, Unit I, 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Rs.5,29,989/- from M/s.Escorts Limited, Unit II, Plot No.2, Sector 13, Faridabad raised vide SCN dated 23.5.2006 and Rs.16,14,51,499/- from M/s.Escorts Limited, Unit I, 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad, Rs.3,71,738/- from M/s.Escorts Limited, Unit II, Plot No.2, Sector 13, Faridabad raised vide SCN dated 7.5.2007 under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. I hold that proviso to Section 11A(1) to demand duty or the extended period of five years is not invokable in this case. Appropriate interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall also be payable. (iv) I order that the common Central Excise registration cer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive period. 4.1 Learned Advocate submits that the common registration given to unit II & III vide order dated 3rd March, 2003 and the common registration given vide order dated 6.9.04 including unit I are lawful. The same have been granted after taking into account various factors such as interlinked process, movement of goods manufactured from one premises to other premises, common administration, common sales tax registration, common income tax assessment as contemplated in para 3.2 of CBEC manual of supplementary instructions. These approvals have been granted after conducting verification of the contents of the applications for common registration after visit by the officers to the different units of the appellants. Under these circumstances, the revokation of such common registration is not justified. At any rate, retrospective revocation is totally unwarranted. 4.2 Further, there have been no new developments warranting revocation of common registration granted in terms of Notification No.36/01-CE (NT) dt.26.6.01 4.3 The definition of factory in terms of Section 2(e) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is an inclusive definition and the factory includes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at unit I being at a considerable distance of about 1.5 km from the other two units, the common registration given on 6.9.04 for all three units is erroneous. 5.3 As the Commissioner has power to grant common registration, he has also power to revoke the same on coming to know that the registration was wrongly given and accordingly show cause notice was issued and the common registration stands revoked. In the facts and circumstances of the case, he submits that revocation retrospectively of the common registration and modification of the same by restoring individual registrations is valid and the consequences are to follow. 5.4 The show cause notices not only proposed modification of common registration into individual registrations but also specifically proposed that the appellants were not eligible for exemption under notification 6/02 and later under 6/06. Therefore, independently the appellants were put on notice that they were not eligible for exemption notification as clearances were not for use within the same factory of production. 5.5 Unit I manufactures parts of tractors which are themselves finished goods and are excisable. Unit I, in addition to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the three units? (c) Whether the three different units be treated as a single factory eligible for exemption for goods manufactured in one unit and used in another unit treating the same as used in the factory of production on the ground that are under common registration? (d) If it was held that three units are independent factories, then whether the demand of duty denying the exemption is beyond the scope of show cause notices? 7.1 The registration of central excise assessee is in terms Section 6 of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules read as under: Rule 9. Registration (1) Every person, who produces, manufacturers, carries on trade, holds private store-room or warehouse or otherwise uses excisable goods, shall get registered: Provided (2) The Board may by notification and subject to such conditions or limitation as may be specified in such notification specify person or class of person who may not require such registration. (3) The registration under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larified that the list of 8 are not exhaustive indicators and that it is not as if that every indicator should be necessarily satisfied. 7.4 The facility of common registration can thus be extended at the discretion of the Commissioner taking into account the relevant factors. It is settled law that the authority which has power to grant certain permission/facility has the power to withdraw the same. However, withdrawing the said facility retrospectively, in the given facts and when the permission was granted based on applications by the appellants and after due verification of the details is not appropriate. It is not a case of the department that the appellants have given any false particulars and obtained the facility. 8.1 The definition of the factory as given in the Central Excise Act, reads as under: 2(e) factory means any premises, including the precincts thereof, wherein or in any part of which excisable goods other than salt are manufactured, or wherein or in any part of which any manufacturing process connected with the production of these goods is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on. From the reading of the above definitio....