2008 (12) TMI 155 - AT - Central Excise

Revocation of central excise registration certificate the appellate authority only leaned on the observations of the Registering Authority and has not examined whether the land was vested with the appellant for doing construction thereon. held that it would be proper on the part of the relevant Assessing Authority to enquire from the Land Allotment Authority as to the status of the appellant with regard to the right to construction over the land so as to carry out the purpose of allotment of land. Once that Authority satisfies as to the vesting of the right of the appellant to use the land in the manner required by the Allotment Authority, the registering authority is free to restore the registration and also grant consequential relief to the appellant as that may be called for under the law.

Summary

Issues involved:
Revocation of registration based on incomplete construction work; Appeal for restoration of registration and consequential relief; Failure of authorities to consider factual scenario; Need for enquiry into land ownership and right to construction; Cooperation between parties for expedited resolution.

Analysis:

1. Revocation of registration based on incomplete construction work:
The appellant's registration was revoked by the Registering Authority due to incomplete construction work on the basis of a litigation by another entity. The revocation was deemed unjustified as the matter was resolved by the Hon'ble High Court, confirming the appellant's ownership of the land in question. The appellant sought restoration of registration and consequential relief.

2. Appeal for restoration of registration and consequential relief:
The appellant moved a miscellaneous application for early disposal of its appeal to avail Cenvat credit. The appellant argued that the revocation of registration was unwarranted and prejudiced their interests. Both authorities failed to consider the factual scenario, leading to the appeal for restoration of registration and relief.

3. Failure of authorities to consider factual scenario:
The Appellate Authority merely relied on the observations of the Registering Authority without examining the ownership status of the land in question. The order was passed without verifying whether the appellant had the right to construct on the land, despite the resolution of the matter by the Hon'ble High Court. This failure necessitated further enquiry into the ownership and construction rights.

4. Need for enquiry into land ownership and right to construction:
To address the discrepancies and ensure proper resolution, the relevant Assessing Authority was directed to inquire with the Land Allotment Authority regarding the appellant's right to construct on the land. Once satisfied with the ownership and construction rights, the registering authority could restore the registration and provide necessary relief under the law.

5. Cooperation between parties for expedited resolution:
Acknowledging the appellant's sufferings due to registration revocation, both parties were urged to cooperate and expedite the resolution of the matter. A deadline of 31st March, 2009, was set for the disputes to be resolved, emphasizing the need for mutual cooperation for a swift conclusion.

In conclusion, the miscellaneous application, stay petition, and appeal petition were disposed of, highlighting the importance of addressing the factual scenario, conducting necessary enquiries, and fostering cooperation between the parties for a timely resolution of the dispute.