2017 (4) TMI 1080

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent Per Ashok Jindal: The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. AST Paper Mills Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of various Kinds of paper and paperboard, since 1995. Thereafter the appellant set up another unit for the manufacture of various kinds of paper and plant and machinery was procured for the same. During the period 199....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the impugned order. 4. The contention is that both the factories are independent factories and run by two private companies, therefore, it cannot be said that both the factories are one factory. The contention is that both the factories are in the separate premises. There is a common entrance but thereafter the entries to both the units are separate and both the units are managed by differen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 161. The contention of the appellant is that the impugned order is passed on the presumption that both the units belonging to M/s. AST Paper Mills, therefore, it is one factory and the other private limited company i.e. M/s. B.K. Kraft Ltd. is only created to avail the benefit of this notification. The contention is that even in case two factories belonging to one company are entitled separately ....