2022 (3) TMI 861 - AT - Central Excise

Refusal to grant registration to the Respondent - refusal on the ground that its company is operating on the premises of another company who had outstanding Central Excise dues - whether Rule 9 prohibits issue of two registration certificates for one and the same premises that formed the basis of the adjudication order? - HELD THAT - On a bare reading of Rule 9 no such prohibition is apparent. Moreover, a company that had under gone a process of liquidation is deemed to be non-existent for which waiting for a request from the said company to deregister it is irrelevant and is not dependent on subsequent registration of any company functioning from the said premises, existence of which remained undisputed in view of its acquirement of right, title and interest over the property through an official liquidation apparently in an auction process that was done in compliance to the order passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and in view of the fact that carrying out business over the said property including filing of its return before all competent authorities bear testimony to the fact that appellant is the rightful owner of the said property, it is entitled to get a registration for its business activities carried out from the premises in question. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refusal of registration based on outstanding dues, Interpretation of Rule 9 regarding registration certificates, Validity of registration post liquidation process.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of refusal of registration to the Respondent due to outstanding Central Excise dues of the previous owner. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was challenged by the Revenue-Department, leading to a detailed examination by the Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the facts presented, indicating that the Respondent's company was established on land seized for recovery of dues from the previous owner. The Respondent, who acquired the property through official liquidation, faced denial of registration due to outstanding dues. The Revenue-Department argued that Rule 9 prohibits issuing two registration certificates for the same premises, as the property was already registered under the previous owner.

In response, the Respondent's Counsel highlighted that the purchase was made under the direction of the High Court, with only land-related revenue arrears to be borne by the Respondent. Citing relevant case laws, it was argued that government dues should not override secured creditors, and the liquidation process did not equate to a sale of business, exempting the Respondent from the previous owner's liabilities.

After reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found no prohibition in Rule 9 for issuing multiple registration certificates for the same premises. The Tribunal emphasized that a company under liquidation is considered non-existent, and the registration issue is independent of the previous owner's deregistration request. The Tribunal concluded that the Respondent, as the rightful owner post liquidation, was entitled to registration for conducting business activities on the acquired property.

In the final order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs to grant registration to the Respondent. The judgment establishes the legality of registration post liquidation process, emphasizing the rights of the new owner over the property acquired through official channels.