9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand for interest. 2. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that * Appellant had made payment of duty whenever they had cleared sugar from the store room and therefore the duty was paid in accordance with law. * The goods manufactured by the applicant were very much available in the factory of manufacture itself as on 17-12-2008 till they were subsequently removed on different dates. The appellants not only paid duty within the prescribed time limit but part of it was paid at the insistence of the department even prior to clearance of goods. * There cannot be any deemed cancellation of registration and there is no provision for deemed cancellation of registration. * The Circular Nos. 593/30/2001-CX., dated 19-10-2001 clearly provides that the cancellation of licence can be at the request of the assessee or can be revoked by the issuing authority. In this case, the appellant did not seek cancellation of registration nor registration certificate was revoked by the proper authority. * Similarly, the goods cannot be deemed to have been removed from the place of removal to attract levy of Central Excise duty. * The circular cited above also specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the goods are considered to have been removed. * The transfer of CENVAT credit is an example where when the factory ownership changes, specific provision have been made to transfer the credit. This shows that credit is considered to have been transferred and the responsibility to show that credit was available in the books is on the subsequent registration certificate holder. * The provisions relating to registration are very clear and there cannot be two registrations in respect of the same premises. * The decision cited by the learned counsel is not of any help since in that case two manufacturers did not operate from the same premises. The owner of the earlier premises had ceased to function and was no longer in the business of manufacture and therefore there was only one person operating from the premises. Under such circumstances, Hon'ble High Court took a view that the department could not have refused to register the subsequent occupant. * He submits that the order is in accordance with law and therefore may be upheld. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. With the introduction of invoice price based assessment, and levy of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovided to the department by Sri Chamundeshwari Sugars Ltd., for obtaining the registration certificate since this is one of the essential documents about the control over the premises which is verified by the officers while granting registration certificate. It cannot be said that the authority granting registration certificate was not aware that the sugar belonging to the appellant was lying in the warehouse. This is because according to the facts on record, the appellant continued to file monthly returns, continued to show the stock in the warehouse in their account and contained to pay duty at the time of removal till the visit of officers when they were compelled to pay the entire amount of duty on the stock lying in the warehouse. Such returns were received by the officers concerned. Obviously the natural conclusion that would arise is that the officers were aware that appellant was an assessee who was clearing the goods without manufacturing the same and both the appellant and Sri Chamundeshwari Sugars were operating from the same warehouse as far the clearances are concerned. I have already observed that levy of duty or demand of duty arises only when the goods are removed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er or the occupant of the premises cannot be deemed to have been cancelled. The obvious conclusion is that the claim made by the learned counsel that in the absence of a proper cancellation of the registration certificate issued to the appellant, it should be said that they continue to have the right to manufacture goods in the same factory and to clear the goods from the same warehouse. There is only one place in the law where operation of a factory by two persons or more than one person has been considered, i.e. in respect of SSI units. The notification clearly provides that if one or more persons make clearances from the same factory, clearances made by all of them have to be clubbed for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. In fact according to Clause 6 of Para 2 of the notification, the clause used is 'where specific goods are cleared from one or more manufacturers from a factory'. This clause shows that the law recognizes the fact that there can be clearances by one or more manufacturers from the same factory. The specific provision made in the notification (one has to assume that when the notifications are issued, the govt is conscious of the provisions of law) shows t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
