By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 31, 2017: THE CCE, Thane-II rejected the request of the appellant for common registration of their other plot no. N-211/2/17.

The ground taken was that between appellant's existing unit and other unit for which common registration was sought, there is another unit which does not belong to appellant;that common registration could be also granted only when both the units wereseparated by a public road, canal or railway line.

The appellant filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

It is submitted that all the factors prescribed in para 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary instructions were fulfilled and, therefore,there is no reason to deny the request for common registration.

The paragraph 2.2 reads -

"Separate registration is required in respect of separate premises except 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 premise 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) Common administration / works management.

(6) Common sales tax registration and assessment

(7) Common Income Tax assessment

(8) Any other factor as may be indicative of inter-linkage of the manufacturing processes."

None appeared for the appellant on the date of hearing.

The AR supported the order of the original authority.

The Bench noted the contents of paragraph 2.2. of the Ch. 2 of the CBEC Supplementary Manual (supra) and observed -

++ It can be seen that the important factor is that both the units which should belong to one entity and certain criteria such as common work force, sales tax, raw materials, management etc. The facts are not in dispute that most of the factors have been fulfilled by the appellant.

++ The only reason for rejection of the request of appellant is that between the existing premises and the other premises for which common registration is required are divided by another plot which does not belong to the appellant. Perusal of the ground plan submitted by the appellant to the Commissioner, I find that there is one plot in between both the premises that does not belong to appellant but both the premises are interlinked by pipeline for supply and use of furnace oil by both the units.

++ Separation of both the premises by only one plot is not significance and for this reason the request for common registration should not be rejected. It is also observed that there is a common road to be used by both the existing premises as well as proposed premises, in this fact when most of the criteria have been fulfilled I do not find any force in the learned commissioner's reasoning for rejection of the request made by appellant for common registration.

Concluding that the appellant is entitled for a common registration in respect of both the premises, as requested for, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-3836-CESTAT-MUM)