9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s KDPMPL) who had taken over the assets and liabilities of M/s. KGPF submitted an application for obtaining Central Excise Registration. Shri R.M. Agarwal who was partner in M/s. KGPF was a Director of M/s. KDPMPL, the other Director being one Shri R.D. Gupta. On scrutiny of documents submitted by both, it was noticed that cases of clandestine removal of processed goods were booked against M/s. KGPF in 1991 and 1998, and that the demands were confirmed and penalty and fine were imposed, which were not paid, and that the demand for duty of Rs. 4.28 was due from M/s. KGPF who had challenged the constitutional validity of Sec.3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZQ of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Order-in-Original; hence this appeal. 2.I have heard both sides. Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and Notification 35/2001 provide for registration and cancellation thereof. Para 4 of the Notification provides that where a registered person transfers his business to another person, the transferee shall get himself registered afresh. Para 5 provides that where a registered person is a firm or a company or association of persons, any change in the constitution of firm, company of association, shall be intimated to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer within 30 days of such change. Para 7 provides for revocation or suspension of registration it the holder of such certificate or any person in his employment, is found to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be found with the action of the authorities in suspending the registration of M/s. KGPF. The appellants do not contest the power of suspension under Rule 9 and the Notification of 2001. The power of suspension of registration existed in Rule 74 of the Central Excise Rules 1944 even prior to the issue of Notification No. 35/2001. Their reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in Dabur India Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1990 (49) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) is misplaced as in that case the litigant has contended that they are not obliged to make any payment, while in the present case their challenge to confirming the demands has been unsuccessful. 3.In the light of the above discussions, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. Pronounced in C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
