2002 (1) TMI 150 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Common registration for manufacturing different excisable goods in the same premises.
2. Superintendent's decision to merge registrations and subsequent cancellation.
3. Commissioner's decision based on separate units and application of Bombay High Court's judgment.
4. Proper officer's authority to issue registration certificates under Rule 174.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants seeking a common registration for manufacturing sugar, molasses, ethyl alcohol, and fusel oil in the same premises. Initially, the Superintendent approved the merger of registrations in 1992 and 1994, but later canceled this decision, leading to representations to higher authorities.

2. The appellant argued that the units were in the same factory premises as approved by the Superintendent, contrary to the Commissioner's finding of separate units based on control facilities. The appellant contended that the Bombay High Court's decision was misapplied and cited precedents supporting their position.

3. The Judge noted that the Bombay High Court's judgment was inapplicable as the units shared commonalities like a common PAN, income tax assessment, and trade tax returns. The Commissioner's decision was deemed adverse without a hearing, violating natural justice in a quasi-judicial matter under Rule 174.

4. The Judge set aside the Commissioner's decision, directing the proper officer to issue a single registration for the appellants' units, emphasizing the commonalities and the misapplication of the Bombay High Court's decision. The decision highlighted the importance of natural justice in such quasi-judicial proceedings under Rule 174.