Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 1 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(185)ELT146(TRI-DEL)
ORDER C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. The appellant, M/s. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of sugar as well as alcohol. Sugar and molasses are produced in one unit from sugarcane. The molasses so produced is transferred by pipelines to the distillery unit where it is converted into ethyl alcohol. The sugar unit and the distillery unit are separated by a railway line. All the same, the appellants sought single Central Excise registration for both units. The Commissioner, Central Excise rejected the same holding that "sugar and distillery division have separate premises".
2. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the Commissioner's decision is not just inasmuch as both the units belong to the same manufacturer and the molasses produced in one unit is directly transferred to other unit for further manufacture of excisable goods. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel that it is convenient for the parties to have the same Central Excise registration. He has also submitted that in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 286 (Tribunal) = 2002 (48) RLT 541 and in the case of Shravasti Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 118 (Tribunal) = 2002 (50) RLT 542, the Tribunal held that a common registration should be allowed despite a road separating two divisions. He has also referred to the following provisions of Notification No. 36/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended:
"(3) hereby declares that if two or more premises of the same factory are separated by public road, railway line or canal, the Commissioner of Central Excise may, subject to proper accountal of the movement of goods from one premises to other and such other conditions and limitations, allow single registration".
3. Heard the learned SDR who refers to Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 which states as under :
"2 Registration of different premises of the same registered person: If the person has more than one premises requiring registration, separate registration certificate shall be obtained for each of such premises."
4. In the facts of the present case, the production is one integrated activity. The presence of a rail line between the two factories does not change that situation. It is advantageous for all concerned to issue one licence, since the molasses produced in one unit is directly transferred to the other unit for further manufacture of excisable goods. The appellant is covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Tribunal. The refusal to issue one common excise registration is not justifiable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Excise authorities are directed to issue a common excise registration to the appellant for both the units.