2000 (9) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 174 in relation to Rule 51A for registration of premises.
2. Requirement of permission under Rule 51A for bringing or retaining duty-paid goods in the factory.
3. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in determining the necessity of permission under Rule 51A.
4. Disposal of the appeal pending application for permission under Rule 51A.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of machinery parts, sought registration under Rule 174 to issue invoices in compliance with Notifications 32/94 and 33/94. The Assistant Collector rejected the application citing the absence of permission under Rule 51A for duty-paid goods in the factory. The Tribunal held that registration under Rule 174 is premises-specific, requiring separate registration for each premise. Without permission under Rule 51A, the registration would be ineffective as the appellant could not bring in duty-paid goods as desired, making the registration meaningless.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument that Rule 174 should be considered independently of Rule 51A. However, it emphasized that the registration under Rule 174 pertains to the premises where excisable goods are stored. The absence of permission under Rule 51A renders the registration ineffective for practical purposes, as duty-paid goods cannot be brought into the factory without such permission. The Tribunal rejected the contention that registration under Rule 174 could be granted without compliance with Rule 51A.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) not only rejected the registration due to the absence of Rule 51A permission but also opined that the manufacturing place cannot be used as a trading place for goods from the market. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) overstepped by delving into the necessity of Rule 51A permission, a matter within the purview of the competent authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision on Rule 51A permission rests with the Commissioner or the Board, and the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have preempted this decision.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The appellant intended to seek permission under Rule 51A, prompting the Tribunal to keep the appeal pending until the competent authority decides on the application. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to finalize the appeal post the decision on Rule 51A permission, ensuring compliance with the law in the subsequent proceedings.