9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with the Department and were manufacturing excisable goods at Plot No.C-31 situated at Kala Dera, Industrial Area, Jaipur. As per the Department, they had excise dues and their registration was not cancelled. M/s. Shri Ganpati Asbestos Pvt. Ltd. sold the said Plot No.C-31 to Modi Sprinklers Pvt. Ltd. vide Sale Deed dated 1.4.2013. The admitted fact is that as on 1.4.2013, there was no attachment of the Central Excise Department on the said Plot, nor by any other competent court. By Rent Agreement/Deed dated 27.07.2015, the respondent/assessee viz. M/s.R.N. Industries came in possession from the landlord - M/s.Modi Sprinklers, being part of the said Plot No.C-31, for manufacture of plastic items. 3. M/s.R.N. Industries submitted an appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order, after examining the sale deed executed between M/s. Shree Ganpati Asbestos Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Modi Sprinklers Pvt. Ltd. and also the rent deed executed between M/s.Modi Sprinklers and M/s.R.N. Industries, recorded the findings that Ganpati Asbestos Pvt. Ltd. had handed over the possession of the said premises to Modi Sprinklers under the registered Sale Deed dated 1.4.2013 and further took notice of the narration in the sale deed in para-3, which stipulates that M/s.Ganpati Asbestos Pvt. Ltd. will bear, if any dues, in respect of the central excise, will arise for the prior period. Further, took notice of the fact that R.N. Indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted) by the assessee (R.N. Industries) is meaningless. It is further observed that the central excise registration for the same premises, where another assessee is still having the registration, cannot be issued till the registration of the earlier occupant viz. Ganpati Asbestos Pvt. Ltd. is cancelled by the Department. 6. Opposing the appeal, ld. Counsel for the respondent, Ms. Asmita Nayak states that the respondent is in bonafide possession of the part of Plot No.C-31, from its present owner Modi Sprinklers Pvt. Ltd. Further, the title of Modi Spinklers in the said plot is perfect, as they have received possession under the Deed of Sale dated 1.4.2013 executed by M/s.Ganpati Asbestos, on which date there was no attachment on the said pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble High Court has held that merely because the erstwhile owner, though it had ceased to carry on business from the premises in question, had failed to apply for de-registration and cancellation of the Registration Certificate, or same had not been done by the Department as it s dues were still to be recovered, the subsequent purchaser cannot be denied the Registration Certificate on this ground. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that under somewhat similar facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board - 1995 (2) SCC (648) has held that the benefit of electric connection cannot be denied to Isha Marbles, which are in bonafide possession, after purchasing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
