TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present Appeals. 4. For the purpose of convenience, facts are narrated from the Tax Appeal No. 376 of 2011. 5. The case made out by the appellant can be summed up thus : 5.1 The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant has, inter alia, two divisions. The Textile Division is known as M/s. Bharat Vijay Mills, which is engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, processed cotton fabrics, processed man-made fabrics, etc. The other division is Plastic Division. The present appeals relate to the Textile Division of the appellant. 5.2 The appellant is holding Central Excise Registration No. AADCSO858EXM005. 5.3 The Plastic Division owned by the appellant holds Central Excise Registration No. AADCSO858EXM004. Both these units are part of the one single legal entity, i.e. Syntex Industries Ltd., having a common PAN under the Income Tax Act. Both the above units are located on the common ground surrounded by a common boundary wall and adjoining to each other. 5.4 The appellant, in order to receive continuous and uninterrupted supply of electricity, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oportionate credit reversed on the furnace oil used in the generation of electricity and supplied to its Plastic Division during the period from January, 2004 to June, 2004. 5.10 The appellant made further claim of refund of Rs. 7,01,902/- with the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Rural Division on October 28, 2004, claiming refund of central excise duty/re-credit of proportionate credit reversed on furnace oil used in the generation of electricity and supplied to its Plastic Division during the period from July, 2004 to September, 2004. 5.11 Subsequently, show cause notices were issued to the appellant as to why the protest lodged by the appellant should not be rejected by recalling the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant. 5.12 By its letters dated March 25, 2005 and August 9, 2005, the appellant submitted its detailed reply to the show cause notices. 5.13 The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II/ Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. Kalol adjudicated the aforesaid show cause notices and passed orders rejecting the protest lodged by the appellant and held that Cenvat credit already reversed by the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt used in the generation of electricity supplied to the appellant's own unit and utilized in the manufacture of final product. According to Mr. Narashimhan, the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in not appreciating that both the units are, in substance, common factory and electricity so supplied to the Plastic Division is used within the factory of production and thus, denial of credit was ex facie erroneous. Mr. Narashimhan further contended that the learned Tribunal below erred in law in not appreciating the fact that the order passed by the CIT (Appeals) was based on the assumption that the appellant and its Plastic Division are two different entities. Mr. Narashimhan further submitted that both the units of the appellant are located in the same premises surrounded by a common boundary wall adjoining to each other as can be seen from the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. He further contended that separate central excise registration does not make it two separate factories as would appear from the definition of the "factory" as contained in Section 2(e) of the Act. Mr. Narasimhan, thus, prayed for setting aside the order passed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction, strenuously contended before us that the factory premises of the unit of the assessee and that of its Plastic Division being situated in the same compound bounded by a common boundary wall, the electricity supplied to the Plastic Division should be treated to have been supplied not to a different entity but within its own factory. He further contends that merely because the Plastic Division is separately registered under the Central Registration Rules, such fact will not make it a different factory. In this connection, he relied upon the definition of the factory given in the Central Excise Act, which is as follows : "(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;" Mr. Narasimhan, contends that the Plastic Division of the assessee should be treated to be a factory of the assessee and thus, the decision of the Supreme Court in the above case goes in favour of his client. 12. We are, however, not impressed by t....