9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise registration for processing of man made fabrics surrendered the registration for cancellation to Central Excise Range Superintendent on 19-5-2004. Simultaneously, M/s. Karnataka Dyeing 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and subject to the outcome of the investigations carried out by the department and also rejected the application filed by M/s. KDPMPL for registration. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the 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 Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed by the Tribunal's order A/347/WZB/06-C.I/EB dated 31-1-2006 [2006 (204) E.L.T. 156 (T)] and a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been sustained against M/s. KGPF. Therefore, no fault could 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, whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
