TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (1) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailing of only one licence for both premises. 2. Shri D.N. Mehta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, stated that the appellants, for the last many years, have been manufacturing sheets/circles of copper and copper alloys, apart front manufacturing billets from scrap or duty-paid virgin metal. The billets fall under Item 26A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff and are fully exempt under Government of India Notification No. 119/66-C.E. dated 16th July, 1966, as amended. Exempted billets are stored in the relevant premises along with old scrap and duty paid metal received from Government agencies as well as cuttings of duty paid sheets and circles. Duty paid un-cut sheets and circles received from the adjoining premises afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsing of only the Rolling Mill had been duly approved by the Excise authorities at the higher level of Shri B.N. Banerji, then Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, who accompanied by the then Collector of Central Excise, Shri S.C. Mathur, had also visited the factory. Later on, it was claimed that the factory was also visited by the then Collector of Central Excise, Shri B.D. Deshmukh, who was satisfied with the segregation of the premises. The issue, once having been settled and having become the established practice over long years, should not have been re-opened in 1979. In fact, when the matter went up in appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the CBEC had remanded the matter back to the Collector of Central Excise, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....production, the raw materials would be those which are received for the production of billets also. 7. Dealing with the above arguments, on behalf of the appellants, Shri Mehta stated that the Collector's observation that both the units are dependant on each other and hence cannot be treated as separate units is erroneous in law. In the unit manufacturing billets, the product is exempted under Notification . No. 119/66 dated 16-7-1966. Under Government of India Notification No. 31/76 dated 28-2-1976, fully exempted copper and alloy units were wholly exempted from licensing control. There was also a general exemption under Notification No. 111/78 dated 9th May, 1978, duly exempting units manufacturing exempted goods from licensing co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e premises where non-excisable goods are manufactured would not require a Central Excise Licence. Under Rule 44(1), a manufacturer is required to submit ground plan only in respect of the premises wherein excisable goods are manufactured. 10. It is further stated that the Collector's view that there is no documentary evidence in support of the appellants' contention that the existing arrangement as regards licensing had the approval of the then Member, Board or of the two former Collectors is not maintainable, since this fact has not been denied by the Excise authorities. 11. Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR, has reiterated before us the views expressed by the Collector. He has also pointed out that the appellants cannot rely on the ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ake out a Central Excise Licence. The Department has, however, taken the view that the two uuits should be considered as a composite rolling mill undertaking the manufacture of billets as well as sheets and circles, and that a licence should be taken out for the entire composite unit. What has weighed with the Collector in taking this view is the fact that the two units are having common partners, that both the "Sections" are located in the "same premises" and that billets manufactured in one unit are used in the other rolling unit and that, therefore, the two units are "dependant on each other". Besides, these two "Sections" it is stated are not separately registered under the Factories Act. We are unable to concur with these views. As the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties in separate premises in this case he is manufacturing excisable goods classifiable under separate sub-items of the Central Excise Tariff in premises clearly separated by a boundary-wall he would be within his rights to request for separate licences for the two premises, in this particular case, the goods that are being manufactured in one of the units, namely, billets, are wholly exempt from Excise Duty. Also, there is a separate notification exempting such units from licensing control. In the circumstances, the action of the Department in asking the appellants to take out a licence for this unit either separately or as a part of the adjoining premises is not maintainable in law. This action cannot be supported by bringing in arguments....