9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll get himself registered with the jurisdictional Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by applying in form specified in Annexure I. The registration certificate is required to be issued in respect of a particular premises. It is thus clear that registration is always in respect of a particular premises and not with respect to particular person. If one person has more than one premises he has to obtain different registration certificates in respect of each premises. The intention of the Board appears to be to prevent successive registration in respect of same premises. If that be so, one and the same premises cannot be registered in the name of two different person. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise dated 19-2-2004, holding that earlier registrant M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors having not surrendered its registration certificate no new applicant can be registered in respect of the same premises. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view so as to prevent anybody from walking away from the registered premises without satisfying duty liability. Conclusion: The Court upheld the impugned order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remises as such questions of continuing or registration becomes redundant even though such unit may not have surrendered registration certificate. The other ground that the previous registrant has not paid excise dues is also irrelevant so far as petitioner is concerned. According to him, both the grounds are unsustainable as such impugned order is liable to be set aside and appropriate writ or direction is liable to be issued to the respondents directing them to issue registration certificate forthwith. 4.Per contra, Shri Jetly, learned Counsel for the Revenue, urged that while processing the application moved by the Petitioner, it has come to the notice of the department that the very same factory premises at 31 Ambernath, District Thane is already registered in the name of M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors having obtained central excise registration by them on 8-10-1999 for manufacturing cotton fabrics, man-made fabrics, embroidery fabrics and knitted fabrics and that M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors have neither till date surrendered their registration certificate nor applied for deregistration of their industrial unit.' The central excise dues amounting to Rs. 18.23 lacs are stil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice and the same is pending for adjudication. In the meantime, the said M/s. Ludhiana Woolen and Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., leased out very same premises to M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors, who have also defaulted in payment of Rs. 18.23 lacs and failed to surrender their registration certificate. He thus submits that M/s. Ludhiana Woolen and Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., has been indulging in the act of systematic induction of different licensees in the very premises and helping them to defraud the central excise dues as such considering conduct of the parties to the transaction, this is a fit case, wherein this Court should exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, who has taken the very same premises on lease with knowledge of dues of the excise department or without making any enquiry in that behalf in either of the case the petitioner cannot be said to have entered into bona fide transaction. He further submits that registration is required to be done under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the following conditions; safeguard and procedures laid down under Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 as amended by Notification No. 30/2002-C.E. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egistration is governed by Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. A person, who produces, manufacturers, carried on trade, holds private store room or warehouse or other uses excisable goods is required to obtain registration under Rule 9 of the Rules. It is also not in dispute that under Rule 9(2) of the said Rules the Board has a power to issue notification and to prescribe conditions or limitations specifying person or class of persons who may not be required to obtain such registration. As per Rule 9(3) grant of registration is always subject to such conditions, safeguard and procedure as may be specified by the Board in the notification issued in this behalf. In the present case, original notification dated 26-6-2001 issued by the Board came to be amended by another notification dated 17-7-2002 wherein the, Board has prescribed safeguards, conditions and procedure for registration of a person under the said rules and exemption from registration in specified cases. The said amended notification provides that every person specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, unless exempted from doing so by the Board under sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 shall get himself registered with the jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the rule to decline to issue registration certificate on the ground of arrears of his predecessor. In this view of the matter, we do not think that judgment in Modi RJR cited supra is of no held to the petitioner. 13.So far as order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2362/89 (Arjandas Metal Ind. P. Ltd. v. Union of India) relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, the same is also of no help to the petitioner. Firstly the action which was the subject matter of challenge in the petition was of the year 1989, at that time notification dated 26-6-2001 as amended by notification dated 17-9-2002 was not in filed. Secondly, in that case, the Collector of Central Excise had already adjudicated upon the show cause notice and vide order-in-original dated 5th December, 1989 he had directed confiscation of plant and machinery and redemption thereof was allowed on payment of redemption fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- in lieu of confiscation, which the petitioner deposited by challan. Thirdly, the petition was disposed of practically by consent of parties as both parties had agreed that the petition had become infructuous. In the circumstances, order of this Court in the case of Arjandas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
