Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Tamil Nadu Newsprint And Papers Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Collr. ... on 4 September, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991(37)ECR604(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER N.K. Bajpai, Member (T)
1. These three appeals involve consideration of common questions and were heard together. They are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. The details of the three cases relevant for our purposes are as under
Appeal Date of Show Period Amount of duty Date of order No. Cause Notice covered
(a) 2464/86 02.02.1985 12.12.1984 Rs. 22,62,373.70 24.12.1985 Deccan 15.04.1985 to Sugars, 16.09.1985 28.06.1985 Pugalur 24.09.1985 07.10.1985
(b) 2542/87 18.12.1985 28.11.1984 Rs. 13,11,346.42 29.10.1986 Salem to Co-op. 06.03.1985 Sugar Mills, Mahanur
(c) 2543/87 13.06.1985 08.04.1985 Rs. 13,84,362.00 29.10.1986 Sakthi to Sugars, 28.06.1985 Appakudal
2. The facts relevant for determination of the dispute in the first appeal are that Range Officer, Central Excise, Karur, learnt that the appellants had erected two coal fired boilers and were producing steam, an excisable commodity falling under item 68 of the Central Excise tariff and that the steam so produced was being released through pipe line to sugar factory of M/s. Deccan Sugars of Abhhari Ltd. (DS). The Range Officer discovered that the central excise duty payable on steam was not being paid; that no central excise licence had been applied for the production of steam and the procedural formalities required to be observed had not been fulfilled. When the Inspector, Central Excise, Pugalur asked the appellants by his letter dated 12.11.1984 to take out a central excise licence, they replied in their letter dated 12.12.1984 that they had leased their coal fired boiler to M/s. Deccan Sugars Ltd., and that the production of steam continues to be done by the sugar mills for captive consumption in their factory for manufacturing sugar.
3. Investigation showed that M/s. Deccan Sugars had, by their letter dated 15.6.1983, requested the Central Excise authorities for exclusion of serial No. 37 & 59 of the approved ground plan of their sugar factory premises on the ground that the said area was proposed to be provided to the appellants to construct coal fired boilers. The said area was accordingly excluded from the approved licensed premises of the Sugar factory by Range Officer, Karur. It also appeared that the said two coal fired boilers were erected in a place which became different from the licensed sugar factory premises of M/s. Deccan Sugars.
4. It also appeared that the appellants had obtained necessary licence from the Boiler Inspectorate in terms of Section 9 of the Indian Boilers Act and this showed that steam was being manufactured by the appellants in their factory.
5. In the case of other two appeals also, the appellants had installed coal fired boilers in the premises owned by M/s. Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Mahanur (SCS for short) and M/s. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Appakudal (SSL) in pursuance of agreements with them and, in exchange for the steam supplied to the sugar mills from the boilers, the sugar mills released bagasse to the appellants. Since no central excise licence was taken out by the appellants for manufacturing steam in all the three cases, show cause notices were issued to the appellants demanding duty on the steam manufactured and removed by them without taking out a central excise licence and without payment of duty and without fulfilment of the prescribed formalities under the Central Excise Rules. After receipt of their replies and after hearing them, the Collector confirmed the demands of duty on the steam produced in the boilers and supplied to the respective sugar mills in the three cases. It is against the orders in the three cases that the present appeals have been filed to the Tribunal.
6. In the case of the second and third appeals relating to agreements with SCS and SSL, the Collector sought clarification from the appellants during the hearing on the following points:
(a) The agreement with the sugar mills could be called as the lease agreement;
(b) the operating staff of the boiler plant belonged to both M/s. TNPL and the respective sugar mills;
(c) the Supervisory staff and the managerial staff belonged to M/s. TNPL;
(d) the compensation, if any, paid to any workman working in the boiler plant would be paid by M/s. TNPL; and
(e) the provident fund etc., payments of such staff were made by M/s. TNPL.
7. Among the grounds taken in the appeals are that under notification 118/75-CE dated 30.4.1975 the goods falling under item 68 were exempt from duty provided they were intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, or in any other factory of the same manufacturers and this exemption was fully applicable to steam manufactured in the coal fired boilers in all the three cases; that the boilers were required to be installed by the appellants within the factory premises of the sugar mills on lease basis for the purpose of production of steam for captive consumption within the sugar mills; that the appellants had entered into lease agreement with the sugar mills who provided the land free and the appellants erected the boilers and handed them over for being run by the sugar mills on lease; that the letter by which the sugar mills requested for deletion of certain area from their ground plan was only a proposal and had no relevance to any event and the ultimate release arrangement was conceived, executed and formalised by an agreement; that even for the purpose of Section 2(f) of the Indian Boilers Act, 1923, the owner is not only the actual owner but any other person using the boiler which was hired or obtained on loan.
8. Arguing on behalf of the appellants in the first appeal (A. No. 2464/86-D) Shri C. Natarajan, the earned Counsel submitted that the agreement dated 19.2.1985 with the sugar mills provides for installation and commissioning of the boilers by M/s. TNPL and letting them on lease to the sugar mills to enable the sugar mills produce the steam for their captive consumption. This was in consideration for the sugar mills selling all the bagasse produced by them to M/s. TNPL. He read out from the Lease Agreement and stated that steam was actually being manufactured in the sugar factory and was intended for their use. He submitted that Clauses (10) and (12) of the Lease Agreement clearly show that the area in which the boilers were installed continued to be part of the sugar mills. He also invited attention to the correspondence exchanged with the Central Excise authorities and included in their Paper Book and submitted that it was evident from letter dated 18.12.1984 from M/s. TNPL to Inspector Central Excise, Pugalur that although the boilers were installed by them, they were let out on lease to the Sugar Mills "to enable manufacture of steam by them". As regards the provisions of the Indian Boilers Act, 1923, he submitted that pending grant of certificate, provisional orders had been issued to them by the Boiler Inspectorate in terms of Section 9 thereof. "Owner" under the Boilers Act was defined in Section 2(d) "to include any person using a boiler as agent of the owner and any person using a boiler which he has hired or obtained on lease from the owner thereof meaning that the above persons are also considered as owners in addition to the "defacto" owner. This position had also been clarified in M/s. TNPL's letter dated 28.12.1984. He also read out from the first show cause notice dated 2.2.1985 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Karur in para 1 of which it was stated as under:
Whereas M/s. Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd., Kakithapuram, Velayuthampalayam Post, Pin Code 639 117 are found to be manufacturing steam from 7.12.1984 which falls under tariff item No. 68 in their coal fired boiler erected in the premises of M/s. Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd.. (Deccan Sugars), Pugalur and are supplying the same to M/s. Deccan Sugars, Pugalur without taking out a Central Excise licence and clearing the same without payment of duty.
(emphasis supplied)
9. The earned Counsel submitted that it was clear from the words of the show cause notice that the authorities themselves had proceeded on the basis that the boiler was erected in the premises of the sugar mills and M/s. TNPL could not, in these circumstances, be held liable for payment of duty on the steam which was eligible for exemption from duty under notification 118/75.
10. Shri Natarajan placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his claim that M/s.TNPL were not the manufacturers of steam:
(a) M/s. Noorullah Gazanfarullah v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Kanpur 1982 LAB IC 56 This was a case under the Employees' State Insurance Act in which a question arose whether the two establishments--one in which tube wells were located and the other in which the administrative office was located, although enclosed within separate boundary walls, fell within the definition of factory for the purposes of the ESI Act because the total number of employees in both exceeded the limit of 20 prescribed in the Act. The High Court held that even if the establishment having the pumping sets and tube wells and the establishment having the administrative offices treated as separate units, the employees working in both of them will be covered by the definition of 'factory' as understood in Section 2(12) of the Act. The High Court made the following significant observations:
Thus, what remains for consideration is as to whether the office establishment where of course no manufacturing process is being carried on can be treated as a part of the establishment where tube wells are existing and where admittedly manufacturing process is being carried on. In our opinion, the answer to this question would depend on a consideration of the following aspects; firstly whether there is any geographical or physical unity in the two premises: secondly whether there is unity of ownership or occupation of the two premises: thirdly, whether there is unity of employment in the sense that the employees of the two premises are engaged either by the principal employer or by him through the immediate employer and lastly whether there is unity in the work carried on in the factory premises and the office establishment. In the present case it is not disputed that there is unity of ownership of these two establishments. There is geographical and physical unity as well and the mere fact that the two establishments are separated by a boundary wall does not make much of difference. There is unity of employment in the two sections, inasmuch as the workers in both the sections are employed by the same employer. We would say that there is unity in the work as well as the functioning of the pumping set will become useless unless the water is distributed to the consumers. In order to carry out this latter purpose there would be laying of pipes, installation of connections and metres, periodical reading of the metres, preparation of bills and the realization of the dues. This establishment, is, therefore, clearly ancillary to the pumping section. In other words, it would have to be treated as a part of that Section where manufacturing process with the aid of power is carried on. Thus, there is not only functional unity between the two premises but in our opinion there is also unity of ownership, unity of employment and unity of work.
(emphasis supplied)
(b) M/s. Agents & Manufacturers v. Employees State Insurance Corporation 1974 LAB IC 220 Delhi HC It was held in this case that for the purposes of the ESI Act, 1948, where the manufacturing process was carried on by power at two places one furlong apart and polishing and packing was done at a third place, polishing etc., being incidental to the manufacturing process, workers at all places were employees within the meaning of the Act and all the three places form part of one factory. The High Court had relied on the definition of factory given in Halsbury's Laws of England in which it has been stated that separate buildings, even though a considerable distance apart, may, if used for one continuous manufacturing process, constitute a single factory.
(c) S.G. Chemicals & Dyes Trading Employees Union v. S.G. Chemicals A. Dyes Trading Ltd. 1986 Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 303 The Supreme Court held in this case that under Clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act the definition of factory was wide enough to cover so many different processes set out in Sub-clause (i) of Clause (k) of Section 2 thereof. Shri Natarajan read out from para 13 of the judgment which is as under:
13. In the modern industrial work it is often not possible for all processes which ultimately result in the finished product to be carried out at one place and by reason of the complexity and number of such processes and the acute shortage of accommodation in many cities, several of these processes are often carried out in different buildings situated at different places. Further, in many cases these functions are distributed amongst different departments and divisions of a factory and such departments and divisions are housed in different buildings. That a factory can be housed in more than one building is also clear from Section 4 of the Factories Act
(d) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Joint Secretary, Government of India 1978 ELT J 121 Delhi HC : 1978 Cen-Cus 56D (April 1978) It was held by the Delhi High Court in this case that the definition of 'factory' under Section 2(e) of the Central Excises & Salt Act makes it clear that the meaning of factory is not restricted to the part in which the excisable goods are manufactured, but it includes the whole of the premises in a part of which such goods are manufactured.
(e) Herdillia Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 1990 (30) ECR 517 (CegatSB-C) The Tribunal held in this case as under in para 4 of its decision:
4. Notification 118/75 exempts goods falling under Tariff Item 68 of the 1st Schedule to the CESA, 1944 manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The notification does not stipulate that the final products should be manufactured only on the manufacturer's own behalf; it does not restrict the exemption to the owner of the finished goods. Ownership of final goods is immaterial, for the purpose of the notification which has to be read in its plain meaning. It is a well settled proposition of law that in a taxing statute, there is no room for intendment and the matter is governed entirely by the language of the notification. If a tax payer is within the plain terms of an exemption, it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exemption. The appellants having fulfilled the conditions clearly laid down in Notification 118/75, they are entitled to the exemption contained therein.
11. Appearing for the respondent-Collectors, Shri J.N. Nair, the learned Departmental Representative, first referred to letter dated 15.6.1983 from M/s. Deccan Sugars, which, being important, is reproduced below:
The Superintendent of Central Excise 15.6.1983 KARUR Through The Inspector of C.E., Pugalur.
Dear Sir, Additions, alterations and deletions inside the factory premises.
We enclose the approved ground plan of the factory and also a new plan in triplicate showing the area shaded in red to be excluded since we propose to provide this area to Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd., Pugalur to construct coal fired boilers.
Therefore, we request you to delete the items No. 37 and 59 from this approved plan.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(sd.) MS Sivaswami,
Encl: Process Superintendent,
(Seal)
c/- The Inspector of Central Excise, PGR.
/true copy/
12. Shri Nair submitted that in view of the fact that the request of M/s. TNPL was accepted by the authorities, the area excluded from the ground plan of the sugar mills, no longer remained part of the sugar factory and became a part of the factory of M/s. TNPL. Thereafter, Shri Nair referred to the letter dated 28th December, 1984 and submitted that the Lease Agreement dated 19.2.1985 with Deccan Sugars, appeared to be a 'coloured' agreement which was an afterthought because the authorities had initiated investigation into the matter when they wrote the First letter to M/s. TNPL on 12 November, 1984 and followed it up with further enquiries. He submitted that there was nothing about the land on which the boilers were erected in the Lease Agreement. This aspect was covered by the requests of the three sugar mills to the respective central excise authorities made much earlier for exclusion of the land from their ground plans as a result of which these areas in which the boilers were installed did not form part of the sugar factories for purposes of Section 2(e) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
13A. The learned DR contested the claim of Shri Natarajan about the relevance and applicability of the ratio of the decisions on ESI Act and Factories Act to a matter which was governed by the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Shri Nair placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of MM. Khambhatwala, Ahmedabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Baroda from which he read out para 5:
The contention of the learned advocate is that the word "factories" in the Notification No. 80/80-CE should mean "factories" as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 and not in Section 2(e) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. We have given our considered thought to this contention of the learned advocate, but we are unable to agree with him. This Notification 80/80-CE was issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The word "factories" used in this Notification should therefore be governed by the definition of factories in Section 2(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in the absence of any specific provision in the Notification that the definition of the word "factories" in the Factories Act, 1948 should apply for this purpose.
14. In view of this decision and the fact that the question of liability to duty had to be considered in the purview of the Central Excises & Salt Act, he submitted that the considerations which guided the decision under the ESI Act and the Factories Act were not at all relevant for the purposes of the appeals. He also cited the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai v. Govt. of India in which it was held that since Sarabhai Common Services who were manufacturing steam were distributing it to four participating units of the joint enterprise, it could not be said that Sarabhai Common Services were manufacturing it for use in its own factory. The High Court decided that they were not entitled to the benefit of exemption of Notification 118/75. Shri Nair pointed out that the present appeals were covered by this decision since the manufacturers of steam were M/s. TNPL while its users were three sugar mills in their respective factories.
15. Referring to para 12 of the impugned order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Trichy (Appeal No. 2464/86-D), the learned DR submitted that, the Collector had rightly rejected the appellant's plea because the letter dated 15.6.1983 for exclusion of the area in which the boilers were installed was the crucial evidence which proves that M/s. TNPL were the manufacturers of steam and exemption under notification 118/75 could not be extended to the three sugar mills on the ground that they were the manufacturers because the area was no longer part of their factory premises after its exclusion from their Ground Plans, which had been done in the other two cases also.
16. Replying, Shri Natarajan reiterated his arguments and submitted that the decisions cited by him were fully applicable and the appellants cases would be covered by notification 118/75. He also submitted photocopy of Order C. No. V/68/15/4/86-C. Ex. Adj. dated 5.4.1987 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Trichy in a similar case concerning M/s TNPL and M/s Arignar Anna Sugar Mills Ltd., Kurungulam in which the Collector had held that M/s TNPL had no liability to duty on steam, in similar circumstances. Shri Nair contested the claim of Shri Natarajan on the ground that in that case there is no evidence to show that the area in which boilers were installed had been excluded from the sugar factory and this is the reason why the Collector had recorded as under in para 4 of his order:
4. From the department's side, it is placed on record that the area occupied by M/s TNPL's Boiler and auxiliary services are situated within the boundary of the sugar factory of M/s Arignar Anna Sugar Mills, Kurungulam as approved by the Central Excise authorities.
5. The operative portion of the notification No. 118/75-CE dated 30.4.1975 read as under:
Goods falling under item 68, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured or in any other factory of the same manufacturer are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon....
As already mentioned, the departmental enquiries have revealed that the Boiler in question is situated in the factory premises of M/s Arignar Anna Sugar Mills, Kurungulam, as approved by the Department. The only purpose of installing this boiler was to supply steam to the sugar factory in which the boiler is situated. Further, the stress is plainly on the geographical location and not en the ownership of the Boiler. Therefore, as long as steam is manufactured within the factory premises of the sugar mill and the use is also within the same factory of the sugar mill, the exemption under Notification No. 118/75-CE dated 30.4.1975 would be available for the steam irrespective of the ownership of the Boiler.
17. We have carefully considered the matter and perused the case records in these three appeals. The short point to be determined is whether steam manufactured in the boilers erected by M/s TNPL in the areas excluded from the Ground Plans of the three sugar mills was entitled to exemption from duty under notification 118/75-CE dated 30.4.1975. The notification provides two conditions for exemption:
(a) The goods falling under item 68 should be manufactured in a factory; and
(b) (i) should be intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured or
(ii) should be intended for use in any other factory of the same manufacturer.
18. Applying these conditions to the present appeal, it is clear that the area in which the boilers were erected by M/s TNPL in the three cases was not within the factory premises of the sugar mills after they had got it excluded from their ground plans "to provide this area to Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Papers Ltd. to construct coal fired boilers", even if the steam generated in these boilers was supplied to the sugar mills for their use. Nor can it be said that the factory in which the steam was manufactured was the factory of the same manufacturer (meaning the sugar mills). Therefore, neither geographically nor by ownership can it be said that the conditions prescribed in notification 118/75 are fulfilled in the present appeals.
19. Referring to the cases cited before us, it is evident that the ratio of the cases under the ESI Act and the Factories Act are not relevant for purposes of an exemption notification under the Central Excises and Salt Act as held by the Tribunal in the case of MM. Khambhatwala v. CCE, Baroda (supra) which was cited by the learned DR. Moreover, what is important to remember is that we are interpreting an exemption notification, which, according to the well settled principles of law, has to be interpreted in its plain meaning. In the cases cited by Shri Natarajan what fell for consideration was not the applicability of exemption available under notification 118/75 to the circumstances of those cases for determining whether the different units constituted a 'factory' for that purpose but whether they could be treated as factory for purposes of the ESI Act and the Factories Act. Different considerations apply for these different purposes.
20. Further, what has been overlooked while citing those cases is the fact that the Sugar Mills had by positive action taken by them excluded the areas in which the boilers were erected from their factory. Now, Rule 174 which requires a manufacturer to take out a licence stipulates an application to be made in the proper form under Rule 176 for the purpose. Relevant portion of Rule 178 which refers to the 'form of licence' -limitations' is reproduced below:
Rule 178 Form of licence--Limitations.
1. Every licence granted or renewed under Rule 176
(a) shall be in proper form
(b) shall have reference only to the premises, if any. described in such licence:....
21. Form AL-4 which is the prescribed form for "Application for licence under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to manufacture goods" stipulates in Part II thereof as under
1. Brief description (with boundaries) of the premises intended to be used as factory....
2. Description of each main division or sub-division of the factory....
3. Store-room or other place of storage....
22. Form L-4 which is the Licence under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to manufacture excisable goods makes the following stipulation with regard to premises:
Mr./Messrs...of...having undertaken to comply with the conditions prescribed in the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and any orders issued thereunder and having paid the prescribed licence fee is/are hereby authorised to manufacture...(during the three years ending...) in the undermentioned premises, subject to the provisions of the Rules.
(6. Situations and description of premises as described in the application for licence.)
2. The privilege conferred by this licence extends only to the manufacturer of
3. No corrections in the licence will be valid unless ordered and attested by a Central Excise Officer not lower in rank than the licensing authority.
4. This licence may be revoked or suspended or its renewal may be refused, if any declaration made or information given in the application therefor is found to be false or if any undertaking given in such application is not carried out
5. The grant of this licence shall be without prejudice to the rights of any other person over the licensed business or the licensed premises to which such person may be lawfully entitled.
Place Date (Licensing Authority) Renewal of the Licence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of renewal Year for which renewed Signature of renewing authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Rule 43 stipulates that every manufacturer who intends to manufacture excisable goods for the first time shall, before commencing operations, give notice in writing to the Collector and shall specify therein the nature of the raw materials which he intends to use. Rule 44 stipulates that every manufacturer who is required by the Collector so to do, shall, before beginning to manufacture, excisable goods other than salt, liable to duty on manufacture, declare in the proper Form all premises, pipes and vessels intended to be used by him for his business, specifying the purpose for which each room, place, pipe and vessel, is to be used and die mark by which it is to be distinguished stating the quantity of goods which his factory is capable of producing. Under Sub-rule (3), plans of the premises, rooms, places, pipes and vessels to be used by the manufacturer which are referred to in such declaration should be submitted to the proper officer if required and no manufacturer shall be permitted unless such officer has given a certificate of approval. Rule 45 permits alterations and additions in the vessels or pipes by giving two days previous notice.
24. It will, thus, be seen that under Rules 174, 176 and 178 it is obligatory on a manufacturer to give a description of the premises (with boundaries) intended to be used as factory in the AL-4 application and the licence which is issued under Rule 178 is with reference to the premises as described in the licence itself. Under Rules 44 and 45, the manufacturer is required to declare all premises, pipes and vessels intended to be used by him for his business, specifying also the purpose for which each room, place, pipe and vessel is to be used and he is further required to submit plans of the premises etc., for approval. Such being the strict conditions in the Rules for detailed declaration and indication in the ground plan, it was not without any purpose that the sugar mills sought the approval of the Central Excise authorities for exclusion of the areas which they provided to M/s TNPL for construction of coal fired boilers. They could have, if they chose to erect the boilers within their respective factories, sought the approval of the Central Excise authorities under these Rules by making a declaration to that effect and indicating the same in the ground plans of their factories. Their licences would then have also required amendment and "steam" would have been added as an excisable commodity in the Schedule appended thereto. The fact that instead of doing this, they chose to have the areas excluded goes to show beyond any doubt that they did not want to add the boilers to their factories; nor did they wish to avail of the exemption under notification 118/75, because, in that case, they would have been required to comply with other formalities of the Central Excise Rules. One could have laid the blame at the door of the sugar mills for not having complied with the requirements of the rules if they had not taken the initiative of making it clear that the area in which the boilers were erected did not remain part of their factory premises by seeking amendment of the ground plans of their respective factories. The fact that a lease agreement was subsequently signed is not all material since the area itself was outside the factory premises of each of the sugar mills. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the manufacture of steam was done by the sugar mills who were exempted from paying duty on the steam under notification 118175.
25. The judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case oiAmbalal Sarabhai (supra) cited by Shri Nair, the learned DR, also supports the department's view that the factory in which steam was manufactured was not the same in which sugar was manufactured; nor did the two belong to the same manufacturers. We also agree with the learned DR that the decision of the Collector of Central Excise, Trichy in the case of Arignar Anna Sugar Mills cited by Shri Natarajan is based on the facts of that case which do not show exclusion of the area in which boilers were erected from the factory premises of the sugar mills.
26. The decision of the Tribunal in Herdillia Chemicals case (supra) is also not applicable to the present appeals because the point to be decided by us is not on whose behalf the goods were manufactured.
27. Certain other facts which were placed before us in the form of an affidavit of Shri S.A. Ranganathan, Dy. Manager (Legal) of the appellant company also go to support the basic conclusion that after exclusion of the areas from their ground plans, the boilers units were no longer within the factory premises of the three sugar mills. We agree with the conclusions of Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore who has recorded detailed findings on these questions in paragraphs 10-12 (Appeal No. 2542/87-D) and paragraphs 11-13 (Appeal No. 2543/87-D) of the two impugned orders.
28. The amounts of duty demanded in the three impugned orders have not been disputed in the appeals. The appeals fail for detailed reasons recorded above and all of them are, therefore, rejected.