2006 (2) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oject was also enclosed. Accordingly, on 26th Feb. 1998, a registration certificate for manufacture of synthetic yarn was issued by the Superintendent to the appellant in the name of Mahabir Syntex (a unit of Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd.) at Sahjanwa, Gorakhpur. The yarn spinning machinery was installed in the existing premises of the jute manufacturing factory. 2. Appellant received LDO, a modvatable input, between 31.3.2000 and 27.1.2001 in their factory at Sahjanwa, and took modvat credit. This LDO was used in the generation of electricity, in generators which formed part of the jute manufacturing plant. The power generated was used in both (jute & yarn) lines of production. 3. On 21.11.2001, the Superintendent of Central Excise wrote to ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also pointed out that, subsequently, Central Excise authorities themselves issued one  combined licence on 21 .4.2002 for the factory for the manufacturer of both jute products and 100% polyester yarn. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the earlier issuance of two central excise registrations, separately for each product, in no way; changed the legal standing of the, factory and the manufacturer of the-unit In regard to the claim for modvat credit, the learned counsel has taken us to the provisions of Rule 57AB and has contended that rule specifically recognizes a "manufacturer" taking credit of duty paid on inputs" received "in the factory". Learned counsel's submission is that since there is only one manufacturer and o....