Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Multi-Flex Lami Print Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 16 September, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/451/10 - Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/69/RGD/2010 dated 04.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s Multi-Flex Lami Print Ltd.
:
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur
Respondents
Appearance Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, Advocate for Appellants Shri N.A. Sayyad, JDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 16.09.10 Date of Decision : 16.09.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellant has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting their request to grant single registration for the factory situated at plot No. 50 to 52 and 54 to 59, MIDC Mahad. The Commissioner denied the registration on the ground that the case of the appellant has not covered under para 3.2 of Chapter 2 of CBEC Manual and relaxation granted under Notification No. 36/2001 issued under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.
2. The learned DR submitted that the appellant is challenging the communication dated 19.11.08 before this Tribunal but as per the Exhibit-F to the Appeal memo, there was a communication between the Asst. Commissioner, Mahad Division and the Asst. Commissioner (Tech) of Central Excise, Raigad wherein in para 3, it is clearly mentioned that a decision has been taken on 10.04.2008 wherein the application for registration was rejected and the appellant has not challenged that order, hence the appeal is not maintainable.
3. I have seen the impugned order which is in challenge before me. In that order nothing is mentioned about the communication between the two Asst. Commissioners and as per the impugned order it is clear that although the decision may be taken on 10.04.2008 but the same was communicated to the appellant through the impugned order dated 19.11.08. Accordingly, the objection raised by the learned DR is not sustainable and the same is rejected.
4. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that this issue has already been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Modison Metals Ltd. vs. CCE Daman 2008 (227) ELT 221 (Tri. Ahmd.) wherein on the identical facts, the appellant was granted a single registration.
5. Heard and considered.
6. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that in the case of Modison Metals Ltd (supra) this Tribunal has held that the Notification No. 36/2001-C.E. has to be construed in a way so as to further the legislative intent and not to defeat the same. The entire idea of single registration is that if two premises are part of the same factory and is having common administration and common manufacturing facilities, the single registration should not be denied. Accordingly, I find the appellant is also entitled for single registration. Considering the same, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3