TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter 28.02.2001. The department is of the view that the appellant after acquiring these two Sheds in December 2003 applied for amendment in the Central Excise registration which was duly allowed and these two Sheds were incorporated in the earlier registration. It is the case of the appellants that Shed No.15 and 36D are part of their factory which commenced production prior to 28.02.2001 and therefore, they are entitled to the benefits of the notification. It is also submitted that relevant details regarding investment in terms of the notification were duly submitted to the Investment Appraisal Committee and no objection was raised by the Committee. Department entertained a view that Shed No.15 and 36D from where the appellants started manufacturing branded chewing tobacco under a different brand name 'Toofani Zarda Silver & Kimam' after 28.02.2001 and as per the provisions of notification, the benefit of notification is not available in respect of the units which had commenced production on or after 28.02.2001. Accordingly, the benefit of notification was denied. 2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the demand is also barred by limitation as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration in respect of its unit located at Shed No.17, instead they got this shed endorsed on the registration certificate granted to their unit located at Shed No.6 & 7. As the Shed No.17 was acquired by the Appellant after eligibility cut-off date of 28.02.2001, it has therefore been alleged that tobacco products manufactured and cleared from the unit located at Shed No.17 were not entitled to the benefits under Notification No.69/2003-CE and 8/2004-CE. According to the department, Shed No.17 is an independent factory which 'started commercial production' after the cut off date 28.02.2001 and had not been availing exemption under 32/99-CE. As such, one of the necessary conditions of Notification No.69/2003-CE dated 25.08.2003 or 8/2004-CE dated 12.01.2004 in respect of products alleged to be 'removed' form Shed No.17 [Para 60 and P 73-74 of the two SCNs.] was not satisfied and certain goods alleged to have been removed from this shed were not eligible to exemptions. 6. It is further alleged that prior to 28.02.2001, no industrial unit from Shed No.17 was operating which availed benefits of Notification No.32/1999- CE or 33/1999-CE, as all plant and machinery, except those transfe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ahati 23.10.2000 Date of Registration Certificate issued by Central Excise authorities 25.10.2000 Date of filing of ground plan by Appellant to Central Excise authorities 15.11.2000 Date of commencement of commercial production of the unit 17.11.2000 Date of approval of ground plan by Central Excise authorities 20.11.2000 11. The dispute in the instant case is related to the Shed No.17 located in the same Bamunimaidan Industrial Estate and Appellant's claim that this shed is an extension of its existing unit located at Shed No.6 & 7 in the same industrial Estate. 12. It is the Appellant's case that Shed No.17 was in fact acquired for expansion of operations of the unit located at Shed No.6 & 7 as evident from their application to Central excise department for incorporation/endorsement of Shed No.17 in the Registration certificate issued for the unit located at Shed No.6 & 7. Date of letter issued by AIIDC transferring Shed No.17, Bamunimaidan Industrial Estate, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati to the Appellant 27.04.2001 Date of application to central excise range office seeking incorporation of Shed No.17 in the Registration Certificate issued for Shed No.6 & 7 Bamunimaidan In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistration under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, ESI & PF registration etc. The department has failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the Appellant was actually operating two independent and self contained units, one located at Shed No.14 and the other located at Shed No.15 & 36D for manufacturing of chewing tobacco products. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that assessee was found operating a chewing tobacco manufacturing unit without obtaining Central Excise license. In fact, out of several serial operations required for manufacturing of different chewing tobacco products, some were carried out in the Shed No.14 whereas rest of operations were carried out in the Shed No.15 and 36D. 16. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted a compilation of case laws. 17. Learned Advocate pointed out that department's case is based on proposition that the original shed and extension (added sheds) are two independent units. Learned Commissioner is conscious of the fact that demand has to follow from revocation of Registration. It is for this reason the first proposal in the show cause notice is to revoke the Registration. However, learned Commissioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Shed No.17 Bamunimaidan Industrial Estate was wrongly deposited in Escrow Bank Account and the jurisdictional Commissioner having control over such Escrow Bank Account had not forfeited amount of duty so payable from such Escrow Bank Account. It is thus trite that when the facts were well within the knowledge of department, the extended period cannot be pressed into service. 20. We observe that it is not in dispute that common registration was granted by Assistant Commissioner. This decision of Assistant Commissioner is being questioned on the basis that the registration was not granted by the Commissioner. Ratio of Tribunal judgement in Balkrishna Industries Ltd. - 2015 (324) ELT 705 (T-Kol) applies, wherein the Tribunal has observed that if DC was not competent to decide, he could have put up the file to the Commissioner. 21. We find that the Tribunal in Escorts judgement - 2011 (273) ELT 415 (T) answers the law point whether benefit of exemption can be disallowed for the past when the department had registered the premises as one factory and later on department feels that they are in fact two or three factories. In this case there were three factories having common Central E....