2011 (9) TMI 451 - HC - Central Excise

Registration - Change in premises - new address communicated - existing registration continue and no new registration sought - Compliance of Rule 9 - Held That - Both the earlier premises as well as the new premises fall with the jurisdiction of the same Superintendent of Central Excise. - the notification 35/2001 contemplates that in certain situations, where a person manufactures excisable goods or carries on trade in excisable goods from more than one premises, it would be open to him to obtain a single registration for all premises which falls within the jurisdiction of one Commissioner of Central Excise provided that the details of all the premises are duly declared. - Hence, having regard to the fact that there is no allegation in the present case, of any wrong doing or fraudulent conduct on the part of the Petitioners, there appears to have been, if at all, a technical or venial breach. As we have noted earlier, the Petitioners furnished an intimation to the Superintendent of Central Excise on 8 July 2004 and their bona fides have not been doubted in the affidavit in reply. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Central Excise registration for new premises from 8 July 2004.
2. Legitimacy of Cenvat credit availed by buyers based on invoices from unregistered premises.
3. Requirement for fresh registration upon shifting business premises.
4. Compliance with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Central Excise registration for new premises from 8 July 2004:
The Petitioners initially registered their premises under Central Excise on 25 January 2002. Upon shifting to new premises on 7 June 2004, they informed the Central Excise authorities via a letter dated 8 July 2004, believing that the existing registration would continue. The Court noted that the Petitioners continued to file returns using the old registration number, and the Excise Department acknowledged the new address in communications. The Court directed that the registration certificate issued in January 2011 should relate back to the application made on 8 July 2004, considering the substantial compliance and the absence of fraudulent intent.

2. Legitimacy of Cenvat credit availed by buyers based on invoices from unregistered premises:
The Department objected to the invoices issued from the new premises, which were not updated in the Registration Certificate, and initiated actions against the buyers for availing Cenvat credit. The Court considered the bona fide conduct of the Petitioners and the technical nature of the breach. The Court directed the authorities to consider the registration valid from 8 July 2004, thereby validating the invoices issued during that period.

3. Requirement for fresh registration upon shifting business premises:
The Petitioners did not obtain fresh registration upon shifting premises, believing the existing registration would suffice. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Rule 9, which requires fresh registration upon changing business premises. However, given the Petitioners' bona fide actions and the Department's acknowledgment of the new address, the Court treated the breach as technical and directed the registration to be considered effective from the date of intimation.

4. Compliance with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002:
Rule 9 mandates registration for entities dealing with excisable goods and specifies conditions for changes in business premises. The Petitioners' failure to obtain fresh registration was a breach of Rule 9. However, the Court noted that the Petitioners had substantially complied by informing the authorities and continued to be treated as registered by the Department. The Court's decision to relate the new registration back to 8 July 2004 was based on the absence of fraudulent intent and substantial compliance with Rule 9.

Conclusion:
The Court made the rule absolute, directing the Central Excise authorities to consider the registration valid from 8 July 2004 and take necessary actions accordingly. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →