9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 449 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of Central excise registration - property was purchased by the assessee in auction - default of excise duty by the earlier registrant - Held that - Property in question was taken by the assessee in auction done by the Financial institution, but the question remains whether the registration can be granted or not where in case the dues are pending against the producer of the premises holder. In the case of Manibhadra Processors (2004 (3) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY) the facts of the case are peculiar one as in the case it is a habit of the lessor to lease out the property to the lessee who defaulted the Central Excise payment and surrender the registration and thereafter another lessee came to the factory and also defaulted in Central Excise dues. If I consider the facts of the Manibhadra Procesors (supra) in that case initial registration was granted and the registration holder defaulted thereafter another registration was granted which also defaulted. Therefore, in that case the Hon ble High Court exercised their power in writ jurisdiction and stopped the granting of registration for misusing the factory premises. The issue came up before the Tribunal in PMS Exports P. Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 247 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), the facts of the said case are similar to the facts of the case in hand. In that case the Tribunal after considering the relevant provisions, which are incorporated in para 6 above and came to the conclusion that registration in similar facts can be granted - Decided in favour of assesse.
Issues involved:
Appeal against denial of Central Excise registration by Commissioner (Appeals) based on previous registration status and property ownership. Analysis: 1. Denial of Central Excise Registration: The appellant appealed against the denial of Central Excise registration by the Commissioner (Appeals). The case involved the appellant purchasing premises from a company that had previously applied for cancellation of registration. The appellant, as an interested party, entered into an agreement to lease the premises and applied for registration. Initially, the registration was granted, but the Revenue appealed, resulting in denial by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that they were entitled to registration, citing precedents like Tata Metaliks Ltd. and PMS Exports P. Ltd. to support their claim. 2. Legal Precedents: The appellant's counsel referenced legal precedents such as Manibhadra Processors, Tata Metaliks Ltd., and PMS Exports P. Ltd. to argue for the appellant's entitlement to registration. The discussion highlighted the interpretation of Section 6 and Rule 9 concerning registration of premises under the Central Excise Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of the registered person applying for deregistration and the jurisdiction to grant registration to bona fide transferees or new owners of premises. 3. Comparison of Facts: The argument presented by the appellant's counsel involved distinguishing the facts of Tata Metaliks Ltd. from the current case, where the property was acquired through auction. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative contended that the facts aligned more closely with the Manibhadra Processors case, supporting the denial of registration. 4. Judicial Interpretation: The judgment delved into the judicial interpretation of registration requirements and the authority to grant registration in cases where previous registration holders had defaulted on excise payments. It referenced the necessity for the registered person to apply for deregistration and the absence of explicit provisions to deny registration to new owners or transferees. 5. Decision and Conclusion: After considering the arguments from both sides and analyzing the legal precedents, the judgment concluded that there was no merit in the denial of registration by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering specific case facts and legal provisions in determining the entitlement to Central Excise registration. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the reasoning behind the decision to allow the appeal against the denial of Central Excise registration.
|
