2017 (11) TMI 1168 - AT - Central Excise

Revocation of registration - whether the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly upheld the revocation of registration of the appellant along with penalty of ₹ 5000/- under Rule 26(2) of CER, 2002? - Held that - from the amended registration certificate issued to the appellant dated 15 December 2015, the Registration-status matter have been regularized by the department. Thus, the order of cancelling of registration vide order dated 23 December, 2015, is erroneous and fit to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:

1. Upholding the revocation of registration of the appellant with a penalty under Rule 26(2) of CER, 2002.

Analysis:

The issue in this appeal revolved around the revocation of the appellant's registration along with the imposition of a penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant, registered as a 'Dealer' under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, was engaged in trading Ferrous Waste and scrap, issuing Cenvatable invoices, and passing on Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty. The Anti-Evasion team of Central Excise Division-I, Bhiwadi, found discrepancies during a verification visit, leading to the allegation that the appellant did not have possession of the registered premises. The adjudicating authority held that the appellant contravened various provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Central Excise Rules, 2002, resulting in the revocation of registration and imposition of a penalty.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that they had a registered office at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, and had been granted registration for their branch office at Bhiwadi. They provided documentation supporting their tenancy at a specific address in Bhiwadi, where they conducted business transactions involving the purchase and resale of iron and steel. The appellant contended that they continued their business operations despite changing locations and had filed for an amendment to their registration certificate, which was later recognized by the department.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the department had regularized the registration status of the appellant through an amended registration certificate issued in December 2015. As a result, the order revoking the registration in December 2015 was deemed erroneous and set aside. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, declaring the registration to be in operation continuously and nullifying adverse actions proposed by the department against the appellant's buyers based on erroneous letters. The appellant was granted consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, setting aside the revocation of registration and penalties imposed, based on the regularization of the registration status by the department through an amended certificate.