Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (8) TMI 846 - AT - Central ExciseRegistration certificate - Inclusion of other premises within the scope of same certificate - Scope of order of Commissioner - Judicial or Quasi Judicial - Commissioner rejected request for grant of single registration in respect of existing premises - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed appeal - Held that:- any person or class of persons who may not require registration may be specified by the Board by notification. Further, the rule provides that the registration under Section 6 shall be subject to such conditions, safeguards and procedures as may be prescribed by the Board by notification. In this context, the provisions of Chapter 2 of CBEC’s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005 become relevant. - Commissioner is the proper officer to deal with an application for common registration and that he shall take into account all the relevant factors while dealing with such an application. This would, in turn indicate the applicant requires to be heard so that he/they would get an opportunity to place before the Commissioner all those factors which according to him/them are relevant to the application for registration. However, as per the above instructions, the burden is on the Commissioner to decide ultimately the relevance of all the factors and then to reckon them in the context of dealing with the registration application. The instruction explicitly says that the Commissioner has to decide the issue case by case. This procedure has all the trappings of a quasi-judicial process and the outcome of such process would necessarily be a quasi-judicial order. Having found the process of consideration of a registration application under Rule 9 by the Commissioner concerned to be of quasi-judicial character, we have to hold that the decision communicated to the respondent in the letter dt. 05/11/2009 of the Deputy Commissioner (Tech.) is quasi-judicial in character. The decision communicated to the respondent was that of the Commissioner concerned and, therefore, it was not appealable to the Commissioner (Appeals). The objection raised by the Department in the present appeal is perfectly valid - Decided in favour of Revenue.
|