9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce 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 - E/269/2008 - A/155/2009-WZB/C-IV/(SMB), - Dated:- 25-3-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Y.D. Banga, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri V.S. Sejpal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - This appeal filed by the department is against the decision of the lower appellate authority to amend the registration certificate issued to the respondents. The respondents had been manufacturing excisable goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision. 2. After hearing both sides, I find that the case law in force is in favour of the respondents on the issue arising in this case. M/s. Milton Polyplas (India) Pvt. Ltd., who had been holding the premises No. B-2 under a lease agreement with the owner surrendered those premises in terms of clause (6) of the "Conditions, Safeguards and Procedures for Registration" laid down by the CBEC under Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 9 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001. As per the said clause 6, every registered person, who ceases to carry on the operation, for which he is registered, shall de-register himself by making a declaration in the form specified in Annexure-III and depositing his registra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he pending appeals. The learned S.D.R. has argued that, where the declaration by M/s. Milton Polyplas (India) Pvt. Ltd. that there is no demand pending against them under the Central Excise Act/Rules as on the date of surrender of registration certificate is not correct in the aforesaid circumstances, they cannot be held to have duly surrendered their registration certificate. I am unable to agree with this argument inasmuch as '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. Milto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en hereinbefore. The learned S.D.R. has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Manibhadra Processors v. Additional Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T. 13 (Bom.), wherein it was held that one and the same premises could not be registered in the name of two different persons. The Hon'ble High Court underlined the mandatory character of the provisions of Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.) ibid. It was held that the person holding earlier registration certificate must surrender the registration certificate in respect of that premises. I have already held that M/s. Milton Polyplas (India) Pvt. Ltd. have duly surrendered their registration certificate in respect of premises No. B-2 and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
