TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 25-3-2014, passed by Commissioner of C.E. & Service Tax, Ghaziabad under which adjudicating authority has rejected the request of M/s. MTIL for allowing a single registration to appellant's two manufacturing premises situated across the road. The appellant was manufacturing lead ingots in their premises (Unit-I) and sending to the premises of M/s. Gupta Pigments and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Which was later taken over by the appellant as Unit-II. During the relevant period, the appellant MTIL (Unit-I) was sending lead ingots to Unit-II for the manufacture of Lead Oxide and was receiving back the same and clearing on payment of Central Excise duty from Unit-I of the appellant. After acquiring Unit-II, appellant requested the Department for grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure are inter-linked then a common registration is required to be given when appellant is having common sales tax registration, filing common income tax return and common administration/work management. It was thus his case that adjudicating authority has wrongly denied common registration. Ld. Advocate also made the Bench go through Para 10 of the case law of Rajhans Precessing Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV (supra) under which CESTAT Delhi has held that giving a common registration in such situations will not affect the Revenue's interest but only saves some work in maintaining separate records and filing separate returns. 3.2 So far as confirmation of demand of duty against the appellant is concerned, Ld. Adv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rules) is not applicable to the appellant. 4. Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Jt. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that as per Notification No. 36/2001-C.E. issued under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 common registration can be given if the process of manufacture of both the units is inter-linked. That in the present case, Unit-I of the appellant should also further utilise the manufactured product after receipt from Unit-I. It was also his case that both the finished products manufactured in Unit-I and Unit-II are different and marketable, therefore, request for common registration has been correctly denied. Regarding duty demands against the appellant, Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings of the adjudicatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in cases where two or more premises are actually part of the same factory (where processes are interlinked), but are segregated by public road, canal or railway line. The fact that the two premises are part of the same factory will be decided by the Commissioner of Central Excise based on factors, such as : (1) Interlinked process product manufactured/produced in one premises are substantially used in other premises for manufacture of final products. (2) Large number of raw materials are common and received/proposed to be received commonly for both/all the premises. (3) Common electricity supplies. (4) There is common labour/work force. (5)&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se rules to discourage such activity. If a common registration is given the appellant does not save any incidence of taxation but only saves some work of maintaining separate records and filing separate returns". 6.2 In view of the above settled position finished product of Unit-I of the appellant is the starting point of manufacturing in Unit-II. It cannot be said that processes of both the units-I & II of the appellant are not inter-connected especially when appellant has a common sales tax registration, files common income tax returns etc. Accordingly, appellant has a case for common Central Excise registration and adjudicating authority has not interpreted the procedure in its right spirit when some procedural accommodation is pre....