Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J.
1. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant applied for registration in terms of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 under their application dated 27.08.2009 declaring the manufacture of LLDPE/LDPE Bag/ HDPE/ PP Fabric Sacks/ Tarpauline as the excisable goods to be manufactured by them. They also declared the various raw materials required for the manufacture of the above goods. Registration certificate was granted to them on 04.09.2009. The application was forwarded to the jurisdictional range Superintendent for further verification. As per report dated 21.09.2009 of the Superintendent., the appellant was not having any factory inasmuch as the premises were approximately 200 sq. Ft. and there was no machinery installed in the said premises. It was found that the appellant were receiving inputs at their premises and sending the same to the job worker for the manufacture of the finished goods. On receipt of the goods, the same were being cleared on payment of duty.
2. As per the Revenue, the registration certificate was issued to them for the manufacture of their final product and inasmuch as in terms of the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 a factorymeans any premises including the precincts thereof, wherein any part of which excisable goods other than salt are manufactured or wherein or any part of which any manufacturing process connected with the production of these goods is being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on, Revenue felt that the registration granted was required to be cancelled. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 04.01.2009 proposing cancellation of the registration certificate. The said show cause notice resulted in passing of an order by the original adjudicating authority and confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which the appellants registration was cancelled. Hence the present appeal.
3. Ld. Advocate Shri Manish Saharan appearing for the appellant is not disputing the fact that the so-called factory premises were only 200 sq. Ft. plot and there was no machinery installed in the same. However, his contention is that even without having a manufacturing unit, an assessee can avail the facility of registering himself as manufacturer and can get the goods manufactured from other manufacturer in terms of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986. It is contended by the appellant inasmuch as they were paying duty of excise on their final product which were actually being manufactured by the job worker in terms of Notification No. 216/86-CE, they are entitled to get themselves registered as manufacturer.
4. I find no substance in the above plea of the appellant. The lower authorities have observed that the factory stands defined in Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and reading of the same with the definition of manufacturer, as appearing in Section 2(f) it becomes clear that the activity of manufacture and the place should be a factory as defined under the Act. Admittedly, the premises owned by the appellant is not a factory and no machinery stands installed in the said premises and no manufacturing activities are being carried out in the said premises. As such I fully agree with the finding of the lower authorities that the appellant cannot be held to be a manufacturer and thus not entitled to get registered himself.
5. My attention has also been drawn to the benefit of Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 01.03.1986 and it stands contended that inasmuch as the appellant is paying duty on the final product, being manufactured by the job worker after availing the cenvat credit of duty paid on the raw material, he has to be treated as the manufacturer.
6. However, I find no force in the above contention of the ld. Advocate. The registration of manufacturer has to be done in terms of the provision of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rule, 2002 whereas the Notification in question deals with the goods manufactured by a job worker. Even in terms of the said Notification, the raw material and semi finished goods have to be cleared to the job worker, after giving an undertaking to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner that the intermediate goods being manufactured by the job worker shall be duly received in the factory of the principal and would be used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product in his factory. In the present case, no manufacturing activity is being carried out in the premises owned by the appellant and the goods are being manufactured in fully manufactured condition in the job workers factory. If the appellant plea is accepted, then any person can get himself registered and call himself a manufacturer without even having any premises or any machinery to manufacture the goods, the same would lead to chaose, inasmuch as a person sitting in his house would become entitled to registration in respect of the goods actually been manufactured by the job worker and would call himself a manufacturer. Merely because the goods are being manufactured by the job worker at the instance of the appellant, will not automatically confer the status of manufacturer on the appellant and he cannot be registered as a manufacturer.
7. Similarly, the appellants reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Amul Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot 2006 (206) ELT 1043 (Tri. Mumbai) is not relevant to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the issue involved was relatable to availment of cenvat credit.
8. In view of the foregoing discussions, I fully agree with the finding of the authorities below that the appellant cannot be held to be a manufacturer, in the absence of a factory and machines and as such is not entitled to get himself registered. The registration granted stands correctly cancelled. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.