2006 (10) TMI 38 - AT - Central Excise

Registration - Appellant application for registration were rejected for operating on the same premises from which another company already operating - Readjudication in absence of remand - Commissioner order were accepted

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of registration application by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Appeal filed by respondent against rejection.
3. Adjudicating authority's rejection of registration application.
4. Appeal against the order in original.
5. Central Excise duty dues from the earlier manufacturer.
6. Consideration of previous orders.
7. Denial of registration without authority of law.
8. Failure of the Department to file an appeal.
9. Final decision on the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The case involves the rejection of a registration application by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise due to the previous operator's outstanding Central Excise duty liabilities. The rejection was based on the premise that since the previous operator's license was not canceled, a new license could not be issued to the current applicant from the same premises.

2. The respondent filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) against the rejection of the registration application. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rejection order and directed the lower authorities to grant the registration without passing a speaking order.

3. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) order, the adjudicating authority again rejected the registration application by a speaking order. The respondent then filed a second appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal by the Revenue.

4. The Revenue argued that granting registration to the current respondent would hinder the recovery of Central Excise duty dues from the previous manufacturer. The authority rejected the registration application based on the concern that having two licensees operate from the same premises would complicate duty recovery.

5. The Tribunal noted that the issue at hand was narrow and decided to dismiss the application for stay and proceed with the appeal's disposal.

6. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had clearly directed the lower authorities to grant the registration, emphasizing that the denial of registration lacked legal authority. The adjudicating authority's re-decision without a specific remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed contrary to established legal principles.

7. The Tribunal highlighted that the Department had not filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) earlier order, which prevented them from taking a different stance in the current proceedings. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of following final decisions.

8. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the Revenue's appeal misconceived and directed the lower authorities to issue the registration certificate to the respondent, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The matter was scheduled for further action on a specified date.