2012 (8) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Rejecting of application for registration of Central Excise for warehousing - premises is already having Central Excise Registration certificate and Warehouse License in the name of other EOU who has defaulted - Held that - A perusal of Section 6 & rules also states that it is the person who has to get registered. The notification in Clause (2) only sets out that if such registered person has more than one premises, then each of such separate premises would require registration certificate for each of such premises. It is open to a person who has ceased to carry on the business to apply for deregistration. Would that mean in the absence of the person who has closed or sold the business or premises, applying for deregistration, there is no jurisdiction to grant another person registration of the premises as in the case of a bona fide transferee for value or for that to the owner of the premises whose lessee has defaulted in payment of excise dues - Neither Section 6 nor Rule 9 and the Notification is a provision for enforcing the claim for dues of the department - An immovable property by itself cannot be sold unless the owner of the premises is defaulter and that too under a certificate as arrears of land revenue. That sale would be subject to the priority of claims - The Respondent No. 3 has therefore, clearly acted without jurisdiction in refusing to grant registration on the specious plea that EOU whose assets has been sold and purchased by the Petitioners has not applied for reregistration - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Central Excise Registration and Warehouse License.
2. Previous default by another unit (M/s. Deto Stop India Limited) on the same premises.
3. Legal implications of unpaid government dues by the previous unit on the current appellant's application.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Central Excise Registration and Warehouse License:
The primary issue in this case is the denial of the Central Excise Registration and Warehouse License to the appellant. The appellant applied for a 100% EOU License under Section 58 & 65 of the Customs Act, 1962, after leasing premises from the original owner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected this application, citing the existing registration and default by the previous unit, M/s. Deto Stop India Limited, on the same premises. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. Previous Default by Another Unit (M/s. Deto Stop India Limited) on the Same Premises:
The department's refusal to grant registration was based on the fact that M/s. Deto Stop India Limited, a previous occupant of the premises, had defaulted on government dues amounting to Rs. 7,90,34,381/-. The department argued that the registration and license could not be canceled until these dues were cleared. The appellant contended that the property was leased from a new owner, who had a clear title, and that the Ministry of Commerce had already canceled the permission issued to M/s. Deto Stop India Limited in 2004.

3. Legal Implications of Unpaid Government Dues by the Previous Unit on the Current Appellant's Application:
The first appellate authority relied on the judgment in the case of Manibhadra Processors (2005) to uphold the denial of registration. This case established that no new unit could be registered on the same premises if the previous unit had not cleared its dues and surrendered its registration certificate. However, the appellant argued that the High Court of Bombay had distinguished this judgment in the case of Tata Metaliks Limited (2009), which allowed registration to a new entity under similar circumstances. The Tribunal found this argument persuasive, noting that the law requires the "person" to be registered, not the premises. The Tribunal concluded that denying registration to the appellant was not justified, as the appellant was a bona fide transferee with no connection to the previous defaulter.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the lower authorities to issue the Central Excise Registration Certificate and Warehouse License to the appellant. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing that the appellant should not be penalized for the defaults of the previous occupant of the premises. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal principle that registration is tied to the person, not the premises, and the appellant's bona fide status as a new lessee.