Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 943 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (3) TMI 943 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Surrender of Central Excise Registration - Held that:- In the present case, firstly new company M/s. Monomer Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd has been issued new registration therefore the present appellant cannot be remained as registered person. As regard compliance of the provision of the notification, requirement is only to file declaration, the appellant have filed declaration in Annexure III and disclosed the entire fact including the status of their cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

such case new registration to any other person on the same premises cannot be given and if that be so then no operation can be carried out in the said premises. In my view, it is a national loss to stop production in any factory premises. The law cannot be such by which production in this country can be suspended for any reason. In view of my above observations, it is of the considered view that Adjudicating authority is legally and correctly ordered for de-registration of the appellant and acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) set aside the Original Order and allowed the Revenue's appeal. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant vide their letter dated 18/6/2009 submitted the registration certificate to the Superintendent of Central Excise for surrender of registration. As per the provision of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 35/2001 -CE(NT) dated 26/6/2001 in the annexure III, appellant stated that their factory on the said premises is closed since 2003 and that they are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 100/- with the Superintendent Central Excise Range-IV, Division Kalyan-IV, Commissionerate Thane-I, undertaking to pay to the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Kalyan-IV, Commissionerate Thane-I, any dues-arising out of the proceedings initiated vide show cause notice No. No. V/Adj/15-85-/PI/KII/MII/2002 dated 3/5/2002 against them as and when the matter is decided by the appropriate authority. They declared in the Annexure III that the duty has been paid in respect of all .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

how cause notice bearing No. V/PI/K-IV/Adj/SCN/Akasha/09/4262 dated 25/9/2009 was issued to M/s. Akasha asking them to show cause as to why the request for de-registration made vide their letter dated 18/6/2009 should not be rejected as their surrender of registration is premature and not legal and proper in view of the Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 35/2001 CE(NT) dated 26/6/2001 and Chapter 2 of CBEC's Central Excise Manual of supplementary Instructions and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

valid and accordingly dropped the proceedings initiated under Show cause notice dated 25/9/2009. Aggrieved by the said Adjudication order dated 24/11/2009 Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order-in-original and allowed the appeal of the Revenue. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant is before me. 3. Ms. Anisha Mandani, Ld Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant have complied with the procedure prescribed for surrendering of Central Excis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iance of the procedure such as filing the declaration in Annexure III is not under dispute therefore there is no reason to deny de-registration of the appellant. She submits that the appellant as required in form specified in Annexure III categorically given status of case pending against them. The said case now is pending with Commissioner for Adjudication. As of now no confirmed demand is pending against the appellant, therefore factory premises was sold to some other company i.e. M/s. Monomer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ingly, department should have cancelled the registration of the appellant. 4. Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that there is demand case pending against appellant therefore to safeguard revenue, appellant cannot be de-registered. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Manibhadra Processors Vs. Additional Commissioner of C. Ex.[2005 9184) ELT 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gainst appellant, whether surrender of Central Excise Registration, proposed by the appellant can be accepted by the department or otherwise. The fact is not under dispute that there is no confirmed demand pending against the appellant. It is also fact that appellant has complied with the procedure prescribed as per Notification No. 35/2001-CE NT that they have filed the declaration in the form prescribed under Annexure III and provided all the information as required therein. It is also observe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on certificate. After making above compliance, the appellant shall be de-registered. I observed that there is no provision to deny the de-registration in a case when the assessee ceased to be a manufacturer. The department denied de-registration only on the ground that there is case of demand of duty is pending against the appellant. I find that the case is in the stage of show cause notice and there is no confirmed demand against the appellant therefore entire basis for denial of de-registratio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of Manibhadra Processors (supra) one premises cannot be registered in name of two different persons. The Hon'ble High Court also held that person holding earlier registration certificate must surrender registration certificate in respect of that premises then only new person can get registration in respect of that premises. The Hon'ble High court held that compliance of provision of Notification 35/2001-CE(NT) necessary to prevent anybody from walking away from registered premises w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version