2004 (3) TMI 94 - HC - Central Excise

Application for registration of an industrial - rejection of the registration application based on outstanding excise dues of the previous registrant and the refusal to grant registration due to the premises already being registered in the name of another entity - HELD THAT - As per Rule 9(3) grant of registration is always subject to such conditions, safeguard and procedure as may be specified by the Board in the notification issued in this behalf. In the present case, original notification dated 26-6-2001 issued by the Board came to be amended by another notification dated 17-7-2002 wherein the, Board has prescribed safeguards, conditions and procedure for registration of a person under the said rules and exemption from registration in specified cases. The said amended notification provides that every person specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, unless exempted from doing so by the Board under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 shall get himself registered with the jurisdictional Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by applying in form specified in Annexure I. The registration certificate is required to be issued in respect of a particular premises. It is thus clear that registration is always in respect of a particular premises and not with respect to particular person. If one person has more than one premises he has to obtain different registration certificates in respect of each premises. The intention of the Board appears to be to prevent successive registration in respect of same premises. If that be so, one and the same premises cannot be registered in the name of two different person. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 19-2-2004, holding that earlier registrant M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors having not surrendered its registration certificate no new applicant can be registered in respect of the same premises. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view so as to prevent anybody from walking away from the registered premises without satisfying duty liability. Conclusion The Court upheld the impugned order dated 19-2-2004 as lawful, dismissing the petition for registration of the industrial unit. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with registration rules and procedures to prevent misuse and evasion of excise duties.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the rejection of an application for registration of an industrial unit under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The main issues include the rejection of the registration application based on outstanding excise dues of the previous registrant and the refusal to grant registration due to the premises already being registered in the name of another entity.

Facts:
The petitioner established a manufacturing unit and applied for registration under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The application was rejected citing outstanding excise dues of the previous registrant, M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors, and the failure to surrender their registration certificate for the same premises. The rejection order dated 19-2-2004 was challenged in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Rival Submissions:
The petitioner argued that the rejection was based on extraneous considerations and should be set aside, while the Revenue contended that the premises were already registered in the name of M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors, who had not surrendered their registration certificate or cleared outstanding dues. The Revenue emphasized the need for compliance with the rules and conditions for registration.

Consideration:
The Court noted that registration is granted under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, subject to specified conditions and procedures. The amended notification requires separate registration certificates for each premises, preventing successive registrations for the same premises. The Court found the rejection justified to prevent evasion of duty liability and distinguished previous judgments that were not applicable to the current case.

Conclusion:
The Court upheld the impugned order dated 19-2-2004 as lawful, dismissing the petition for registration of the industrial unit. The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with registration rules and procedures to prevent misuse and evasion of excise duties.