2016 (2) TMI 966 - AT - Central Excise

Amendment in registration certificate - in the same plot number, they have taken another premises called as plot no. 53/1, NIT, Industrial Area, Faridabad which has required to be added in the certificate - whether the denial of amendment in registration certificate and imposition of penalty justified? - both the premises of the appellants are part of plot no. 53. In fact both the premises are in one plot and a private road has been constructed therein for to access the other owners of the plot - Held that - By constructing a private road as per Rule 9(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, a person is required for separate registration as per 3.2 of Chapter 2 of the said rules - the appellant is having registration certificate for plot no. 53/19 and premises no. 53/1 is the integral part of plot no. 53 both the units have been separated by a private road and not by public road. Therefore, the appellant is not required for separate registration of both the premises separately. In these circumstances, the appellant has complied with the condition of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and no separate registration is required. The ld. Commissioner (A) have only denied the registration on the premises that the amendment has been granted by Assistant Commissioner and not by the Commissioner of Central Excise. This cannot be the ground for rejection of amendment in registration certificate. The order of revocation of amendment in registration is contrary to law - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against revocation of amendment in registration certificate.

Analysis:
The appellant applied for an amendment to their registration certificate to include a new premises in the same plot number. The amendment was initially allowed but later revoked, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contended that the revocation was based on an extended period of limitation and that both premises were part of the same plot, connected by a private road. The appellant argued that separate registration was not required as per Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

The Assistant Commissioner revoked the amendment based on Notification No. 29/2003-C.E. (N.T.). However, the Tribunal found that both premises were part of the same plot and connected by a private road, satisfying the conditions under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal emphasized that separate registration was not necessary in this case as the premises were interlinked and shared common factors indicative of inter-linkage of the manufacturing process.

The Tribunal held that the revocation of the amendment in the registration certificate was contrary to law. It set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any. The decision was pronounced in open court on 15-2-2016.