JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Parv Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Puneet Bansal and Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. These two appeals have been filed by the revenue on inter-related issues. Therefore they are being decided together by a common order. Appeal No. 327 of 2015: 3. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), against the order of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) dated 26.5.2015. It was admitted on the following question of law : “Whether the CESTAT is correct in considering the co-generation plant (used for generation of electricity) installed in a premises situated across the public road as a part of sugar factory and holding the unit eligible for common registration as a whole even when no semi-finished goods are used for the manufacture of finished goods in the said premises where co-gen plant is installed.” 4. By the order dated 26.5.2015, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’). The appeal had been filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut arising from the order-in-original dated 4.12.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Saharanpur rejecting the application filed by the assessee for extension of it’s registration to include the premises housing the co-generation power plant installed beyond the approved ground plan. 5. According to the Tribunal, the co-generation power plant had been installed by the assessee in the factory of manufacture (of final product) with reference to Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) read with Section 2(e) of the Act and instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC in short) for the purpose of grant of registration. 6. In short, admittedly the assessee obtained registration with the Central Excise Department and engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. The assessee also availed CENVAT credit in accordance with Rules. Thereafter, it installed a co-generation power plant outside the approved factory ground plan to produce electricity and steam. 6. In short, admittedly the assessee obtained registration with the Central Excise Department and engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. The assessee also availed CENVAT credit in accordance with Rules. Thereafter, it installed a co-generation power plant outside the approved factory ground plan to produce electricity and steam. Admittedly, a co-generation power plant was located on the opposite side of the public road where the sugar and molasses plant of the assessee was established and for which plant registration was pre-existing in accordance with an approved ground plan. The assessee had installed capital goods at the co-generation power plant that gave rise to a CENVAT credit in its favour. This CENVAT credit was sought to be utilized against duty payment on clearance of sugar and molasses. 7. It is in the above factual context that the assessee’s application for extension of registration to include the co-generation power plant was filed. The assessee claimed that the processes in the two plants namely at the plant to manufacture sugar and molasses and the other plant to manufacture steam and electricity were interlinked processes under a common administration using common labour/work force. The application was however rejected on the ground that the aforesaid two processes were not interlinked and also on account of the fact that the two plants were situated on either side of a public road. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also similarly rejected. 8. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its impugned order found that the processes conducted at the two plants of the assessee were interlinked inasmuch as the assessee was producing sugar and molasses from sugarcane at its old/original plant on one side of the public road. This process produced bagasse. The bagasse so produced was consumed at the co-generation power plant established by the assessee on the other side of the public road. It produced steam and electricity. The electricity so produced was used to manufacture sugar and molasses while some surplus electricity that arose in such process was sold to the State Electricity Board. This process produced bagasse. The bagasse so produced was consumed at the co-generation power plant established by the assessee on the other side of the public road. It produced steam and electricity. The electricity so produced was used to manufacture sugar and molasses while some surplus electricity that arose in such process was sold to the State Electricity Board. Relying on the circular issued by the CBEC and also looking at the interlinked processes at the two plants established by the assessee and further in view of the fact that the Tribunal found that the sugar mill and co-generation power plant were inter-connected through over head conveyor belt to transport bagasse from the sugar mill plant to the co-generation power plant and the administration/work management at the two plants were common, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held it to be entitled a single registration. Appeal No. 332 of 2015: 9. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the order of the Tribunal dated 26.5.2015. It was admitted on the following question of law : “Whether the CESTAT is correct in allowing the CENVAT Credit on plant and machinery as capital goods installed in the Co-generation power plant which is outside the approved factory premises and without bringing the same in their factory and without using the same in the manufacturing of finished goods.” 10. By that order, the Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. That appeal was filed against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut arising from the order-in-original dated 22.2.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Saharanpur. 11. The assessee had availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 2,06,86,247/- arising on capital goods namely co-generation power plant against removal of sugar and molasses. The aforesaid CENVAT credit was sought to be recovered from the assessee. It led to issuance of show-cause notices for the period January 2004 to October 2006, July 2010 to March 2011 and April 2012 to March 2013. These notices culminated in the order-in-original dated 22.2.2007 whereby demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,06,86,247/- together with interest and equal penalty was passed. The appeal against the aforesaid order filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed. 12. These notices culminated in the order-in-original dated 22.2.2007 whereby demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,06,86,247/- together with interest and equal penalty was passed. The appeal against the aforesaid order filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed. 12. Upon further appeal, the Tribunal has allowed the assessee’s appeal and held that the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit as claimed. 13. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to avail CENVAT credit on capital goods used to establish the co-generation power plant against duty payment of sugar and molasses. 14. In that appeal, the revenue had objected that in any case the assessee could not avail the CENVAT credit on capital goods installed at it’s co-generation power plant because (i) the co-generation power plant was a different plant and (ii) some part of electricity produced by the assessee had not been captively consumed but sold to the electricity department. The latter reasoning has been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no evidence exists that co-generation power plant had functioned during the off season i.e. when there was no bagasse available with the assessee to generate electricity. The Tribunal also relied on order of the Bangalore bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Nizam Deccan Sugars Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad-I, 2008 (227) ELT 122 , had reasoned that CENVAT credit on the capital goods used in the co-generation power plant is admissible and may be utilised against duty payment on sugar and molasses. As to the reason that the co-generation power plant was a separate plant it has been disapproved in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in it’s order dated 26.5.2015 wherein it has been held that the assessee is entitled to a single registration for both it’s plants. 15. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the ‘factory’ premises of the assessee for manufacture of sugar and molasses is situated completely on one side of the public road and it is further admitted to the assessee, that plant does not make use of bagasse and it does not manufacture steam or electricity. The capital goods (on which CENVAT credit had been taken and utilized) were installed in the ‘factory’ premises located on the other side of the public road. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to a single registration. 16. The capital goods (on which CENVAT credit had been taken and utilized) were installed in the ‘factory’ premises located on the other side of the public road. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to a single registration. 16. Opposing the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for the revenue, Sri Puneet Bansal and Sri Nishant Mishra appearing for the assessee submitted that the matter of grant of registration is governed by Section 2(e) read with Section 6 of the Act; the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the instructions issued by the CBEC. Relying on the meaning of the word ‘’factory’ as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act, it has been submitted, for the purpose of the Act and therefore, for grant of registration under the Act, ‘factory’ means any premises where exciseable goods are manufactured or wherein or in any part of which, any manufacturing processes connected with the production of such goods is carried on or is ordinarily carried on. For ready reference Section 2(e) of the Act is quoted below : Section 2. Definitions : In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, [(a)..... (aa)..... [(aaa).... [(b)..... (c)..... (d).... (e) “factory” means any premises, including the precincts thereof, wherein or in any part of which exciseable goods other than salt are manufactured, or wherein or in any part of which any manufacturing process connected with the production of these goods is being carried on or is ordinarily carried on” 17. Then word ‘factory’ has not been defined under the CENVAT Rules. However, under Rule2(t) of the CENVAT Credit Rules adopts the definition of that term as defined under the Act. It reads as under: “Rule 2. Definitions—In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a)..... (b)...... (c)..... (d)..... (e)..... (f)..... (g)..... (h)..... (ij)..... (k)..... (l)..... (m)..... (n)..... (o)..... (p)..... (q)..... (r)..... (s)..... (t) words and expressions used in these rules and not defined but defined in the Excise Act or the Finance Act shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in those Act.” 18. Relying on that definition, learned counsel for the assessee submits, the term ‘factory’ would also include the premises where any manufacturing processes connected with the production of sugar and molasses, was carried out. 19. Relying on that definition, learned counsel for the assessee submits, the term ‘factory’ would also include the premises where any manufacturing processes connected with the production of sugar and molasses, was carried out. 19. It has been submitted that under Section 6 of the Act, any person engaged in the production of specified goods is required to obtain registration. The assessee being engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses that are specified goods, it was obliged to obtain a registration. For ready reference Section 6 of the Act is quoted below : “Section 6. Registration of certain persons—Any prescribed person who is engaged in— (a) the production or manufacture or any process of production or manufacture of any specified goods included in the (the First Schedule and the Second Schedule) to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), or (b) the wholesale purchase or sale (whether on his own account or as a broker or commission agent) or the storage of any specified goods included in (the First Schedule and the Second Schedule) to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), shall get himself registered with the proper officer in such manner as may be prescribed.” 20. Then, Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provide for the procedure for grant of registration etc. It reads as under : “Rule 9. Registration—(1) Every person, who produces, manufactures, carries on trade, holds private store-room or warehouse or otherwise uses exciseable goods (or an importer who issues an invoice on which CENVAT Credit can be taken), shall get registered: Provided that a registration obtained under rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or rule 9 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 shall be deemed to be as valid as the registration made under this sub-rule for the purpose of these rules. (2) The Board may by notification and subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in such notification, specify person or class of persons who may not require such registration. (3) The registration under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by notification by the Board.” 21. In this background, reliance has been placed on paragraph 3.2 of the Circular issued by the CBEC. (3) The registration under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by notification by the Board.” 21. In this background, reliance has been placed on paragraph 3.2 of the Circular issued by the CBEC. It has been submitted that the process of manufacture of sugar and molasses was interlinked with the processes to manufacture steam and electricity using bagasse inasmuch as the sugar and molasses plant used the electricity generated by the co-generation power plant for its processes and the co-generation power plant used bagasse produced by the sugar and molasses for its processes. Thus, the processes at the two plants were interlinked. Neither could have worked without the other. Also, since labour, administration etc were found to have been common at the two plants, it has been contended that the processes were interlinked as per the own understanding of the CBEC and therefore, the assessee was entitled to grant of a single registration. For ready reference paragraph 3.2 of the Circular is quoted below: “3.2 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 premises 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 labor/work force. (5) Common administration/work 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. This is not an exhaustive list of indicators nor is each indicator necessary in each case. The Commissioner has to decide the issue case by case.” 22. We have considered the argument so advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In the first place, we observe that grant of registration is covered by the provisions of Section 6 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the circular issued by the CBEC. The Commissioner has to decide the issue case by case.” 22. We have considered the argument so advanced by learned counsel for the parties. In the first place, we observe that grant of registration is covered by the provisions of Section 6 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the circular issued by the CBEC. At this stage and for that purpose the CENVAT Rules have no applicability and/or relevance. 23. Then, with reference to requirement of registration it is seen, Section 6 of the Act requires a person such as the assessee - engaged in production or manufacture or any processes of production or manufacture of specified goods (sugar and molasses in the present case), has to compulsorily obtain registration. Certain notifications have also been issued under Rule 9 providing for conditions, safeguards, procedure etc. pertaining to grant of registration. 24. Clearly if a person is manufacturing two different items at two different premises, he is required to obtain separate registrations in respect of such separate process involving separate premises. 25. In view of the supplementary instructions 3.2 extracted above, it was clearly stipulated that though generally separate registration are required in respect of separate premises, however, such premises may be treated to be same/one ‘factory’ where the processes performed at two different premises are interlinked even though such premises may have been physically segregated by a public road, canal or railway line. 26. Thus, as a general rule separate registration are required for separate premises. However, as an exception, a single registration may be granted in respect of two or more premises that may even be segregated by a public road, canal or railway line, if the processes performed at such different premises thus segregated are interlinked. Illustratively, it has been provided by the circular/instructions that processes may be treated to be interlinked if the product manufactured at one premises is substantially used, in the other premises for manufacture of final product or if there is common labour/work force working at the two premises or if the administration/work management is common or if the common sales tax registration and assessment is made or there is a common income tax assessment etc. 27. 27. The factors/situations enumerated under paragraph 3.2 of the instructions are only illustrative and have not been mentioned therein to constitute the sole/complete criteria or absolute rule to determine when two or more separate premises may be treated as a single premises for the purpose of grant of registration. 28. However, it is significant to note while issuing the instructions, CBEC was conscious of the reality and had therefore provided that the segregation of two or more premises that may arise on account of a public road, canal or railway line passing through them would not be decisive to the issue of single registration. The circular further provides that for the processes to be interlinked, it would be sufficient if the product manufactured at one premises are ‘’substantially used’ at the other premises. 29. In the instant case, it has been found by the Tribunal that the bagasse produced at the premises engaged in manufacture of sugar and molasses, was consumed in entirety at the other premises being the co-generation power plant. Also, the Tribunal found that the electricity produced at the co-generation power plant at the other premises was used at the sugar and molasses plant and it was only in the off season that some part of electricity may have been sold to the State Electricity Department which as a fact was not found verified on record. 30. Then, the Tribunal has further found that the two premises of the assessee had a common administration/work management. Also, peculiar to the facts of the case, the Tribunal found that the bagasse was directly transported from the sugar/molasses plant to the co-generation power plant through overhead conveyor belt. 31. Thus, in view of the provision of Section 2(e) of the Act read with Rule 2(t) of the Rules and as self classified by the CBEC circular/instructions, the activities of the assessee at the two separate premises in question were clearly interlinked. ‘Factory’ under Section 2(e) of the Act, means any premises where part of manufacturing processes connected with the production of goods is carried on. ‘Factory’ under Section 2(e) of the Act, means any premises where part of manufacturing processes connected with the production of goods is carried on. Therefore, once it had been found that electricity produced at one premise of the assessee had been used to manufacture of sugar and molasses at the other premise and also that the bagasse manufactured at the other premises of the assessee (sugar and molasses plant) had been used to generate electricity at the premise of the assessee generating electricity, it appears the two premises together would constitute the ‘factory’ of the assessee under Section 2(e) of the Act. 32. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact recorded in the context of law that governs grant of registration, we find that the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact based on evidence on record and applied the correct test to conclude that the assessee was entitled to a single registration for interlinked processes though the process of manufacture of sugar and molasses was being carried out at a premise segregated by a public road from the other premise engaged in generating steam and electricity. The aforesaid finding of the Tribunal did not suffer from any infirmity. The own understanding of the CBEC in this regard noticed above is also consistent with such finding. 33. The submission made by the revenue that for interlinked business process, there must have been a semi-finished or intermediate product produced at one premise that should have been consumed at the other premise is clearly erroneous. There may exist numerous other fact situations involving inter-linked processes. Suffice it to say that in the instant case, we need not lay down any principle governing the same inasmuch as we find that the present case is clearly covered by the exception carved out by the CBEC instructions/circular extracted above. 34. Accordingly, question of law is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Appeal No. 327 of 2015 lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 35. Next, it has been submitted, for the purpose of Rule 3, the assessee had not received the capital goods (on which CENVAT credit had been claimed) in the ‘factory’ premise where it manufactured sugar and molasses. Removal of those goods attracted payment of excise duty. Appeal No. 327 of 2015 lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 35. Next, it has been submitted, for the purpose of Rule 3, the assessee had not received the capital goods (on which CENVAT credit had been claimed) in the ‘factory’ premise where it manufactured sugar and molasses. Removal of those goods attracted payment of excise duty. According to learned counsel for the revenue, therefore, the assessee could not have availed CENVAT credit on capital goods for co-generation power plant against removal of such sugar and molasses. 36. In the first place, the assessee was not entitled to common registration and the Tribunal has erred in granting the same. Had the Tribunal correctly decided that issue and rejected the application for grant of common registration, the claim of utilisation of CENVAT credit (on capital goods used to generate electricity) against removal of sugar and molasses would not have arisen. 37. Opposing this appeal learned counsel for the assessee submits, the manufacturing process at the co-generation power plant having been found to be clearly connected with and interlinked to the manufacturing process at the premises of the assessee engaged in manufacture of sugar and molasses the assessee was entitled to a single registration treating it’s two premises to constitute a single ‘factory’ as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. 38. Having heard the arguments so made by learned counsel for the parties, we observe that in the first place, in view of our reasoning given while deciding the Appeal No. 327 of 2015, we do not find any error in the finding of the Tribunal that the two premises of the assessee, taken together, constituted a single ‘factory’ under Section 2(e) of the Act. 39. Then, for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit, it has to be examined whether the assessee could take credit of the CENVAT arising on capital goods used to generate electricity against central excise duty payable on removal of sugar and molasses. In this regard, the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules are relevant. It reads as below: Rule 3. CENVAT credit : (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the CENVAT credit) of- (i) ...... (ii)...... (iii)..... (iv).... (v)..... (vi)..... (vii)..... (viii)..... (ix)..... (x)..... (xi)..... paid on ..... It reads as below: Rule 3. CENVAT credit : (1) A manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service shall be allowed to take credit (hereinafter referred to as the CENVAT credit) of- (i) ...... (ii)...... (iii)..... (iv).... (v)..... (vi)..... (vii)..... (viii)..... (ix)..... (x)..... (xi)..... paid on ..... (i) any input or ‘capital goods’ received in the “factory of manufacture of final product” or premises of the provider of output service on or after the 10th day of September, 2004; and” 40. While, there is no dispute that CENVAT credit had arisen to the assessee on the capital goods used to generate electricity, it is to be seen whether the said capital goods had been received in the ‘factory of manufacture of final product’ for the purpose of Rule 3(1), as above. Here, it is noted that the phrase ‘factory of manufacture of final product’ has not been defined under the Rules. By virtue of Rule 3(t) of the Rules read with Section 2(e) of the Act, the term ‘factory’ used in Rule 3(1) has to be given the same meaning as has been given to that word under the Act. 41. In the earlier part of this order while deciding the Appeal No. 327 of 2015, we have already held that for the purpose of registration under the Act, the two premises of the assessee though segregated by a public road constituted a single ‘factory’. There being only one ‘factory’ for the purpose of the Act and the Rules, the input or capital goods received at either of the two premises of the assessee (that together constitute a single factory) made the assessee entitled to utilize such credit for payment of such duty of excise in terms of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules. 42. Therefore, the Tribunal has made no error in allowing the assessee to utilize CENVAT credit on capital goods against the duty payment on sugar and molasses. 43. Last, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the revenue that in any case, a disallowance of CENVAT credit utilization should have been made by the Tribunal in proportion to the electricity sold by the assessee to the State Electricity Board during off season. 44. This argument raised by learned counsel for the revenue is misconceived in the facts of this case. 44. This argument raised by learned counsel for the revenue is misconceived in the facts of this case. The Tribunal has held that the revenue did not lead any evidence that the assessee’s co-generation power plant functioned during the off season. The revenue having not established as a fact, that the assessee sold any power during season, the argument raised by learned counsel for the revenue does not require any further examination. In absence of any evidence that the assessee manufactured or sold any electricity during off season by way of separate activity disconnected to its activity of manufacture of sugar and molasses, no disallowance of CENVAT credit could be made by the revenue. The order of the Tribunal in that regard does not call for any interference. 45. In view of the above, the question of law raised in Central Excise Appeal No. 322 of 2015 is therefore, answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee against the revenue. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 46. Consequently, both appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.