2009 (3) TMI 273 - AT - Central Excise

Registration of premises registration of premises in name of present respondent denied as dues from previous owner present and that surrender of registration not conclusive as cases pending before Court and Tribunal - government dues and demand figuring in the above declaration should be understood as enforceable dues and demands. - Where the appeals of the assessee are pending, there were no enforceable dues to the government as on the date of surrender of the registration certificate. The registration certificate of M/s. Milton Polyplas (India) Pvt. Ltd. was surrendered, apparently, in accordance with the provisions of Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules. - any dues that may be ultimately adjudged against M/s. Milton Polyplas (India) Pvt. Ltd. are secured by the indemnity bond also hence it is held that respondents are entitled to registration

Summary

(1) The appellate tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai heard an appeal filed by the department against a decision to amend a registration certificate issued to the respondents. The respondents applied to include adjacent premises in their registration, which was initially rejected due to another company holding registration for those premises. However, after that appearances were surrendered by the other company, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the lower authority to issue a registration certificate to the respondents including the new premises. The department challenged this decision in the present appeal.

(2) The tribunal found in favor of the respondents, citing that the previous company had surrendered the premises in accordance with the rules, despite having pending government dues at the time. The surrender was considered valid, as there were no enforceable dues or demands to the government at the time of surrender. An indemnity bond was also executed by the previous company, securing any dues that may be adjudged against them in pending appeals. The tribunal referenced a previous case to support their decision, highlighting that if any dues are ultimately adjudged against a party surrendering their registration certificate, they could be recovered by the Revenue. Therefore, the tribunal upheld the decision of the lower appellate authority.

(3) The tribunal noted a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which supported the respondents' case, stating that authorities cannot decline a registration certificate without quantifying the arrears of the transferor. The tribunal also referenced a Bombay High Court decision, which emphasized the mandatory nature of the surrender of a registration certificate for a premises. As the previous company had duly surrendered their certificate, the respondents were entitled to claim registration for the premises. Consequently, the impugned order was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.