2013 (11) TMI 483 - HC - Central Excise

Revocation of the certificate of registration Name of the Petitioner changed Fresh certificate of incorporation issued Application made for change in the name of the company - Fresh Central Excise Registration Certificate was received Held that - Mere change in the name of the company cannot possibly affect the position of the Central Excise dues or the liability of the company to pay those dues there is no basis or justification to revoke the Central Excise Registration merely because the name of the company has been changed - the basis of the revocation is ex facie flawed it does not require any detailed investigation - the Petitioner relegated to the remedy of an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Decided in favour of Petitoner.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning the correctness of an order revoking a certificate of registration under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 based on a name change of the company and outstanding dues.

Analysis:

1. Impugning the Correctness of the Order:
The petitioners sought to challenge the order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise revoking a certificate of registration due to a name change of the company. The First Petitioner had changed its name from Sriman Organic Chemical Industries Limited to Seya Industries Limited, and a fresh certificate of incorporation was issued by the Registrar of Companies. Despite the name change, the Central Excise registration remained the same. The Assistant Commissioner revoked the registration on the basis that there were outstanding dues to be recovered. The High Court held that the name change did not affect the liability of the company to pay the dues, but there was no justification to revoke the registration solely based on the name change. The court set aside the order of revocation, allowing the Central Excise Authorities to pursue other legal avenues for recovering any outstanding dues.

2. Legal Basis for Revocation:
The Assistant Commissioner assumed that Sriman Organic Chemical Industries Limited and the First Petitioner were the same entity under the same management, leading to the revocation of the registration certificate. However, the court found that the revocation was flawed as the name change did not alter the company's liability for the outstanding dues. The court emphasized that the authorities could use legal procedures for recovering dues but concluded that revoking the registration based solely on the name change was unjustified. The court did not see the need to refer the matter to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) as the basis for revocation was deemed flawed.

3. Disposition and Costs:
The High Court disposed of the petition, setting aside the order of revocation by the Assistant Commissioner. The court clarified that this decision did not prevent the Central Excise Authorities from pursuing lawful means to recover any outstanding dues. Additionally, the court ruled that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, focusing on the implications of a name change on registration revocation and the legal basis for such actions by the Central Excise Authorities.