TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d central excise registration for two units of the appellants separated by a road. The second appeal is in the matter of removal of capital goods from one premises of the appellant registered as his factory to the another premises across the road sought to be registered together with the first premises for which registration, permission is denied by the department. Appeal No. E/1687/2008 : 3. This appeal is against the order dated 16-6-2008 issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV. In this order the Commissioner rejected the request of the appellant's application dated 16-4-2008 and follow up letter dated 3-6-2008 seeking a combined registration for their existing registered premises at Plot No. 5, NH-2, NIT, Faridabad ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne given by C.B.E.C. for granting common registration for two premises separated by a public road. His submission is that the Commissioner cannot refuse such permission when the appellant falls within the norm prescribed by C.B.E.C. in this regard. 6. The appellant assails the finding of the Commissioner that making tools and dies is not a process interlinked to manufacture of final products because such final product cannot be made without tools and dies so manufactured. It is also argued that if a separate registration is taken and if they pay duty on tools and dies manufactured in Premises-II and clear it to the factory at Premises-I they can take Cenvat credit of duty so paid and the whole exercise will be revenue neutral. 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the manufacturing processes. This is not an exhaustive list of indicators nor is each indicator necessary in each case. The Commissioner has to decide the issue case by case." 10. The moulds and dies manufactured at Premises-II is required for manufacturing activity at Premises-I and such goods are being used in premises-I and not for sale to any independent buyers. So the observation of the Commissioner that the manufacturing processes at the two plots are not interconnected is wrong. Further there is no condition that such registration can be given only if the products manufactured in one of the factories is not final products but only intermediate products. In fact what is intermediate product and what is final product depe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6/- along with interest and penalty for equal amount. The ground for the demand is that during Oct., 2005, the appellant removed the capital goods in their tool room at Premises-I to their factory at Premises-II separated by a road without getting that premises included in their registered premises and without reversing Cenvat credit taken on the capital goods. 13. The counsel for the appellant submits that with the expansion of business, availability of space at Premises-I became a problem and the appellant shifted the process of manufacture of tools dies to Premises-II belonging to the appellant. Since the equipment were being shifted to appellant's own premises for own manufacturing activities the appellant was under the impressi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he matter should be treated leniently and closed without any penal consequence to the appellant. 16. The learned DR on the other hand contests that under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules when any capital goods are removed from any registered premises, an assessee who has availed credit is required to reverse such credit which was not done in this case. The application for including the Premises-II was given much after the removal of the goods from the registered premises during Oct., 2005 and only when the matter was pointed out by the departmental officers. Such inclusion was not allowed by the Commissioner. Even if such registration is granted later on, there was a violation of Cenvat Credit Rules as on Oct., 2005 and penal co....