2012 (8) TMI 410

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... C.E.T.A., 1985 in their factory at Palaspanga in Orissa. In the same factory premises, they also manufacture steel billets out of the sponge iron. The appellant had taken separate registration for these commodities, namely, sponge iron and steel billets though manufactured in the same factory premises but located at different parts in the said factory premises. A show cause notice dated 14.05.1998 was issued to them alleging under-valuation of sponge iron manufactured and used within the same factory in the manufacture of steel billets. The said demand was confirmed by the ld.Commissioner against which the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal, at New Delhi. Before the Tribunal, the appellant had raised the plea of revenue neutrality ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ills Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad 2007 (220) ELT 121 (Tri.-Del.), Orissa Spnge Iron Ltd. vs. CCE, BBSR-II 2008 (228) ELT 601 (Tri.-Del.). 4. Per contra ld.A.R. reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. The limited issue for determination is, whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 for captive consumption of sponge iron used in the manufacture of billets in the same factory premises. It is not in dispute that the plant manufacturing sponge iron and the plant manufacturing billets are situated in the same factory premises as is evident from the ground plan produced by the ld.Advocate during the course of hearing. Also, it is not in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufacturing process connected with the production of these goods is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that all the three plants manufacturing different excisable goods are situated in the same premises. The Revenue is treating them as different factory only on account of appellants taking three registrations under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules. The number of registrations, in our view, will not decide the number of factories unless and until they are situated in different premises. It is very clear from the definition of the term factories that all the three units will be regarded as one factory as all the excisable goods are manufactured in the same premises. Similar views were exp....