TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lling under Chapter 22 of the CETA, 1985. They are also in possession of R2 Registration Certificate No. RC2/92 issued by the Department. Initially they were having two separate Registration Certificate one for Sugar Unit and the other for Distillery Unit and they were also maintaining two separate PLAs for the two units. In the Distillery unit located near the factory area, alcohol both denatured and un-denatured are manufactured out of molasses. Verification of invoices revealed that prior to June, 1996 molasses were cleared without payment of duty for captive consumption in the Distillery Unit and the invoices were prepared by the Distillery on subsequent dates as a user industry which was not at all manufacturing molasses. They had prepared the invoices for the molasses already received by them from Sugar plant and captively consumed. Investigation also revealed that the invoices were prepared to represent the inputs received by them prior to 1996 without payment of duty. Therefore, these documents were invalid, according to the department, for the purpose of availing credit under Rule 57A. In the present case the duty amount mentioned in the Certificate A pertains to the duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity has correctly denied credit of Rs. 15,00,000/- based on the invoices in this case. Regarding the credit availed on the basis of Certificate 'A', to the tune of Rs. 7,09,087/- I find that they had relied on the provisions of Rule 57F(2). Rule 57F(2) allows credit of duty paid by the manufacturer of inputs subsequent to the clearances of inputs, any additional amount of duty consequent on the variation in price, rate of duty etc. In the present case the appellant did not pay the full amount of duty at the time of captive consumption of molasses but paid the entire amount of duty subsequently. Here the manufacturer sugar plant neither paid the duty on molasses at the time of diversion for captive consumption, nor paid any additional duty amount subsequently. But the entire duty was paid by distillery unit. So the order passed by the lower authority is correct regarding denial of credit of duty on Certificate 'A' also." It is against the above findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellants have come in appeal on the grounds that : (a) The Sugar Unit and the Distillery Unit cannot be treated as two separate units and these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring Molasses from Sugar Unit under the cover of AR3As without payment of duty and observed Chapter X procedure. (i) RT 12 returns were submitted for the month of April, 1997 and the same was acknowledged by the Supdt. on 5th May, 1997 itself. In support of their claim they have also referred to various judgments including the judgments in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 73 (T)) = 2001 (43) RLT 299 (T) and Grauer and Weil (India) Vapi Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda reported in 1994 (78) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CCE reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 116 (T) . 4. Shri K. Mani, learned Consultant for the appellants reiterated the grounds of appeal and sought for setting aside the order in toto. 5.Shri V. Sounderarajan, learned JDR appearing for the department defended the orders passed by the authorities and also referred to the comments received from the Commissionerate vide letter C.Nol.V/ch. 17/2/34/98 appeals dated 13-10-2001 addressed to the SDR, a copy of which has been placed in the file. He submitted the appellants have taken Modvat credit on the invalid documents and hence and they ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... molasses is used within the same factory though the plants are registered separately. It was further held that though different plants manufacturing different product and registered separately under Rule 174 of C.E. Rules, 1944, but located in the same premises to be treated as one factory in terms of Section 2(e). Further, we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Grauer & Weil (India) Ltd v. CCE, Baroda reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 481, has held that if two units of the same company situated on a common plot of land, goods manufactured by one unit forming input of the other unit and their removal from first unit shows 'as for' captive consumption having common power and water connections, common payments of these facilities, common payments to workers, common delivery challans and common stock register and store keeper, both the units treatable as one factory. Further, the Central Board has issued instructions vide F. No. 10/02/69-CX, dated 12-5-1971 according to which the different portions or sections or departments of the same factory are located in adjoining premises or premises merely separated by a road or a canal, railway and both the places are known as forming ....