2012 (8) TMI 846 - AT - Central Excise

Registration certificate - Inclusion of other premises within the scope of same certificate - Scope of order of Commissioner - Judicial or Quasi Judicial - Commissioner rejected request for grant of single registration in respect of existing premises - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal - Held that - any person or class of persons who may not require registration may be specified by the Board by notification. Further, the rule provides that the registration under Section 6 shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedures as may be prescribed by the Board by notification. In this context, the provisions of Chapter 2 of CBEC s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005 become relevant. - Commissioner is the proper officer to deal with an application for common registration and that he shall take into account all the relevant factors while dealing with such an application. This would, in turn indicate the applicant requires to be heard so that he/they would get an opportunity to place before the Commissioner all those factors which according to him/them are relevant to the application for registration. However, as per the above instructions, the burden is on the Commissioner to decide ultimately the relevance of all the factors and then to reckon them in the context of dealing with the registration application. The instruction explicitly says that the Commissioner has to decide the issue case by case. This procedure has all the trappings of a quasi-judicial process and the outcome of such process would necessarily be a quasi-judicial order. Having found the process of consideration of a registration application under Rule 9 by the Commissioner concerned to be of quasi-judicial character, we have to hold that the decision communicated to the respondent in the letter dt. 05/11/2009 of the Deputy Commissioner (Tech.) is quasi-judicial in character. The decision communicated to the respondent was that of the Commissioner concerned and, therefore, it was not appealable to the Commissioner (Appeals). The objection raised by the Department in the present appeal is perfectly valid - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Out-of-turn disposal of appeal application.
2. Inclusion of additional premises in registration certificate.
3. Appeal against Commissioner(Appeals) order regarding registration application.
4. Jurisdictional objection raised by Additional Commissioner(Tech.).
5. Quasi-judicial character of Commissioner's decision on registration application.

1. Out-of-turn disposal of appeal application:
The respondent filed an application seeking out-of-turn disposal of the appeal filed by the Department. After reviewing the records and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found the case fit for summary disposal and proceeded to take up the appeal itself for final disposal.

2. Inclusion of additional premises in registration certificate:
The respondent applied for the inclusion of a new shed in the existing registration certificate. However, the Commissioner rejected the request citing that the existing premises and the new shed were way apart from each other and did not satisfy the required conditions for single registration. The respondent then appealed to the Commissioner(Appeals) who allowed the party to make a fresh application, emphasizing the need for a speaking order to avoid jurisdictional issues.

3. Appeal against Commissioner(Appeals) order regarding registration application:
The Department's appeal was directed against the appellate Commissioner's order. The Superintendent (AR) argued that the respondent's application required a speaking order from the Commissioner, making it appealable to the CESTAT. The Tribunal considered the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, Central Excise Rules, and CBEC's Excise Manual, ultimately agreeing with the Superintendent's arguments.

4. Jurisdictional objection raised by Additional Commissioner(Tech.):
The Additional Commissioner(Tech.) raised a jurisdictional objection, which was overruled by the appellate authority. The Tribunal noted this objection while analyzing the appeal against the Commissioner(Appeals) order.

5. Quasi-judicial character of Commissioner's decision on registration application:
The Tribunal delved into the quasi-judicial nature of the Commissioner's decision on the registration application. Referring to Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, and CBEC's Excise Manual, the Tribunal emphasized the Commissioner's role in determining factors for common registration. The Tribunal concluded that the decision communicated to the respondent was quasi-judicial and not appealable to the Commissioner(Appeals), thereby allowing the Department's appeal and setting aside the impugned order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's thorough examination of the legal issues involved, including the procedural aspects and the application of relevant laws and regulations in the context of the dispute.