2014 (2) TMI 348 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Central Excise registration - recovery of dues from successor - Adjudicating Authority denied on the premise that the original owner of the business premises was having dues payable to the Central Excise department - Commissioner (Appeals), set aside the order of denial of registration - Recovery of government dues of Central Excise duty from subsequent buyer of the land is not required to be paid, in case the subsequent buyer has purchased the premises in an auction from third person, without any condition of fastening the liability of Central Excise duty - Following the decision in the case of Agarwal Metal Works 2010 (7) TMI 458 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Central Excise registration granted to respondent, denial of registration due to dues of original owner, interpretation of liability for Central Excise duty on subsequent buyer.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal regarding the grant of Central Excise registration to the respondent, who purchased business premises in an auction from a third party. The Adjudicating Authority initially denied registration, citing dues payable by the original owner to the Central Excise department as a reason. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the denial and directed the competent authority to grant registration to the respondent. The revenue appealed this decision.

The revenue argued that dues against the original owner must be paid before granting registration to the subsequent owner. In response, the respondent's counsel cited a precedent - the case of Agarwal Metal Works P. Ltd. 2011 (263) ELT 397 - where the High Court of Delhi ruled that recovery of Central Excise duty from a subsequent buyer is not required if the purchase was made in an auction without any condition regarding liability for Central Excise duty.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the judge referred to the decision in Agarwal Metal Works P. Ltd. and concluded that there was no merit in the revenue's appeal. Following the precedent, the judge dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order granting registration to the respondent. The judgment clarifies the interpretation of liability for Central Excise duty on subsequent buyers in cases where the purchase is made in an auction without specific conditions regarding such liability.