9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal has been filed by M/s. Saradhambal Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore (SSI) against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Salem. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) affirmed the order of the original authority refusing to issue registration to the appellant for the reason that the registration of the previous occupier of the premises had not been cancelled. The facts of the case are that M/s. Saradhambal Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore, had applied for registration as a manufacturer of excisable goods from the premises at SF No.10/1, Kunnathur Road, Uthukuli. The predecessor registrant M/s. Gowri Steel Rolling Mills (GSRM) had surrendered the registration certificate issued to it. However, the lower authorities ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there were no provisions in the statute enabling such de-registration on the basis of a joint undertaking . 2.' The learned counsel reiterated the grounds of appeal and relies on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Modi RJR Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 348 (A.P). In the said judgment, their Lordships had held that the authority competent to issue registration could not decline an application for registration on the ground that the applicant's predecessor was in arrears. The learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble High Court had passed the above judgment while interpreting the scope of Rule 174 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and that the extan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tration was not in existence. Andhra Pradesh High Court had hence observed that there was nothing in the Rule to decline to issue registration certificate on the ground of arrears of the applicant's predecessors. 4. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions by both parties. The impugned order affirmed rejection of application of the appellant to register it as a manufacturer of excisable goods in respect of the premises owned by GSRM on the ground that there were several Show Cause Notices involving demands totaling above Rs.93 lakhs issued to them and pending decision. Moreover, GSRM had not furnished a declaration to the effect that no governmental dues under the Act or Rules were pending against them. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registrant undecided indefinitely. I find that the following observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court vindicate the claim of the applicant to obtain registration in the facts and circumstances of this case:- "Thus in view of the observations made above, we find that the respondents have no jurisdiction to decline to issue the certificate of registration or return the application on the ground that the petitioners - predecessor was in arrears. Without quantifying his arrears or taking into consideration his dues or taking any steps for cancellation of his certificate or revocation of his certificate under sub-rule (11), the authorities cannot decline to issue a registration certificate as envisaged by Rule 174 (9) to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
