9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss without having any office or premises, godown and without maintaining prescribed account. - E/1249-1251/2008-SM(BR) - 667-669/2010-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 28-5-2010 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri Saurabh Bassi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The facts leading to these appeals are, in brief, as under: 1.1 M/s. Sidh Industries, Jassran Road, Motia Khan, Mandigobindgarh, were issued registration certificate on 6-12-05 by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Mandigobindgarh as a registered dealer. Mrs. tJsha Rani and Sachin Aggarvanshi are the partners of the Appellant firm. Since at the time of issue of registration certificate, there was no plot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en taken on rent from one Shri Artil Thukral against a rent agreement enquiry was made with Sh. Anil Thukral and he in his statement dated 12-4-07 stated that while the rent agreement had been signed on 9-6-05 with Sidh Inds., the premises had been vacated after about six months without paying any rent. Enquiry was also made with Sh. Davinder Dhiman an immediate neighbour of the plot, In question, and he also confirmed that M/s. Sidh Inds. had vacated the premises after about six months after taking the godown on rent. It, thus, appeared that M/s. Sidh Inds., after taking registration for operating as registered dealer from the premises at plot No. 200, Sector 19, Jassran Road, Mandigobindgarh w.e.f. Dec'05, had never operated from that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise Rules, registration certificate cannot be can celled from retrospective effect; that cancellation of the registration certificate with retrospective effect from 1-4-06 will adversely affect the customers of the Appellant firm who had purchased material against invoice during the period prior to 1-4-06 and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 2.2 Sh. S.K. Bhaskar, learned DR, defended the impugned order and re iterating the findings in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order emphasized that the evidence on record indicates that the Appellant had never operated from the premises whose address is given in the registration certificate, that from the statement of landlord and also from the statement of the own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dlord and also the statement of owner of the neighbouring premises of Sh. Davinder Dhiman. It is also found that when during enquiry with Sh. Sachin Aggarvanshi in April, 2007 when he was asked as to from where he was conducting his business as registered dealer, he could not give any address and not only this, even the accounts which are supposed to maintained by a registered dealer i.e. RG-23D etc. also could not be produced by him. While he stated that the records of the firm were lying with the Chartered Accountant Sh. Samir Garg and on enquiry with Sh. Samir Garg, he denied having the records of the Appellant firm. All this evidence shows that ever since the Appellant firm had been given registration in Dec'05 for operating as register ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
