TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 1st April, 1999 mentioning therein that they are a small scale industry unit and would therefore, be availing excise duty at concessional rate as per Notification No.7/97-CE dated 1st March, 1997, Notification No.38/97-CE dated 27th June, 1997, Notification 9/98-CE dated 2nd June, 1998 and Notification No.9/99-CE dated 28th February, 1999. On scrutiny of the records, the department noticed that the appellant M/s Premium Suitings (P) Ltd. (Chemical Division) was not a separate manufacturer and that it was a division of M/s Premium Suitings (P) Ltd., who were also engaged in the processing of man made fabrics and cotton fabrics, which were having common Directors and were housed in the same premises and also had common income tax and trade....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e premises, I find that both the unit have separate passage/entrance and common wall between these units not be termed as one unit. Thus, it is also clear that both the units have different. They is why, the Department had issued Central Excise Registration on the basis of separate ground plan depicting its a new and one factory. Therefore, it is beyond doubt that both the unit have their separate premises. Regarding common Income Tax/ Sales Tax Registration the considered view that commonality between Income Tax/Sales Tax Registration cannot lead the conclusion that both the unit have same and are legal entity. There is nowhere mention in the Central Excise Act, which stipulates that two factory being common Income Tax/Sales Tax Registrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the demand made by the adjudicating authority was affirmed. The assessee, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal contending that a substantial question of law arises for consideration, namely:- "Whether the CESTAT as well as the adjudicating authority were legally justified in imposing the duty upon the appellant treating the appellant is not eligible for SSI exemption, ignoring the relevant fact that the appellant M/s Premium Suiting (P) Ltd. (Chemical Division) are a unit independent from their Textile Division and are independently eligible for SSI exemption?" We have heard Sri Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vinod Kant, the learned counsel for the department. The extract of the relevant notif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irrelevant to contend that the two factories have separate entrances managing staff or central excise registration. What is relevant is that a manufacturer, if he has one or more factories, would be entitled for exemption at concessional rate of duty if the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods does not exceed Rs. 3 crores. Since the appellant has another factory, which is manufacturing an excisable commodity, its clearances have to be added while considering the exemption notification. Since the aggregate clearances exceeded the limit of Rs. 3 crores, the appellant was not entitled for exemption. The adjudicating authority rightly issued the show cause notice and quantified the demand. The decision cited by the learned coun....