9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained a view that in the said Plot No. 242/1,2,3 GIDC, another unit namely M/s. Deto Stop India (100% EOU) was granted license dated 09.1.2001. M/s. Deto Stop India Limited failed to commence the production and disposed of the capital goods without seeking any permission from the respective departments. They neither applied for cancellation of the license under Section 58 and 65 of Customs Act, 1962, and registration issued under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules, 1944/ Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, nor applied for debonding of the 100% EOU and they are d3efaulter of Govt. Revenue of Rs. 7,90,34,381/- along with interest and penalty, which is still pending for recovery. Consequently, the Central Excise Registration under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules, 1944/ Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 & license issue under Section 58 & 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 to M/s. Deto Stop India Limited, cannot be cancelled till they pay the Govt. dues. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why their application received on 05.8.2011, should not be rejected for the purpose of granting 100% EOU license under Section 58 and 65 of Customs Act, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record. 8. The issue involved in this case is regarding denial of registration certificate under the Central Excise laws and the Warehouse License under the Customs Act to the appellant, on the ground that the premises is already having Central Excise Registration certificate and Warehouse License in the name of some other EOU and that EOU has defaulted. 9. It is undisputed that the current appellant has permission of the Development Commissioner to open and function from the current address. It is also undisputed that current owner of the premises was a purchaser of the property from M/s. United Belt Company and M/s. United Belt Company had purchased the property from M/s. Anil Appliances. It is also undisputed that the Ministry of Commerce and Industries vide letter No. KASEZ/100% EOU/II/892/2000-01/11837 to 11838 dated 12.2.2004 had specifically informed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner regarding withdrawal of the permission issued to M/s. Deto Stop India Limited, Umargaon. On this background, I find that it is necessary to reproduce the findings of first appellate authority, which are as under 5.1 I have carefully gone through the impugned OIO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . . Provided that where the person (hereinafter referred to as predecessor) from whom the duty or any other sums of any kind, as specified in this Section, is recoverable or due, transfers or otherwise disposes of his business or trade in whole or in part, or effects any change in the ownership thereof, in consequence of which he is succeeded in such business or trade by any other person, all excisable goods, materials, preparations, plants, machineries, vessels, utensils, implements and articles in the custody or possession of the person so succeeding may also be attached and sold by such officer empowered by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, after obtaining written approval from the Commissioner of Central Excise, for the purposes of recovering such duty or other sums recoverable or due from such predecessor at the time of such transfer or otherwise disposal or change. In view of the above provisions and other provisions of Section 11 of Central Excise Act and provisions of Section 142 of Customs Act, 1962, I find that the Govt. dues can be recovered even by attachment of the said premises. Consequently, registration under Central Excise Act, 1944 and regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btained under rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 or rule 9 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 shall be deemed to be as valid as the registration made under this sub-rule for the purpose of these rules. (2) The Board may by notification and subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in such notification, specify person or class of persons who may not require such registration. (3) The registration under sub rule (1) shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedure as may be specified by notification by the Board. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 contemplates that the registration shall be subject to the conditions as specified by Notification by the Board. The Board has issued notification under Rule 9. The perusal of the said notification, requires compliance of the following : (a) An application by every person specified under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 for registration. (b) If the person has more than one premises requiring registration, separate registration certificate shall be obtained for each of such premises. (c) Where a registered person transfers his business to another person, the transferee shall g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... induction of difference licensees in the very premises and helping them to defraud the central excise dues. It is on these facts, that the learned Bench of this court was pleased to hold that if one person is having more than one premises, considering the language of the rule and the notification, then he must obtain separate registration certificate for each premises and as such the registration is always in respect of particular premises and not with respect to a particular person. Relying on the notification issued by the Board, the court held that the intention appears to be to prevent successive registration in respect of the same premises. If that be so, one and the same premises cannot be registered in the name of two different persons. The court proceeded to hold that the person holding earlier registration certificate must surrender registration certificates in respect of that premises, then only a new person can get registration in respect of that premises. From the facts, it will be clear that earlier though M/s. Swastik were in arrears fresh registration was granted in favour of M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors. The court found on the facts therein that there was a syste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
