Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Akasha Synotex Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Exicse, Thane-I

2016 (6) TMI 275 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Validity of de-registration of old Central Excise Registration since new registration was granted to the buyer of the premises - whether surrender of Central Excise Registration, proposed by the appellant can be accepted by the department or otherwise? - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mpliance of the provision there is no reason to deny the de-registration of the appellant. Even, if it is assumed that appellants registration should not be cancelled, in 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. - Thus Adjudicating authority is legally and correctly ordered for de-registration of the appellant and accepted the surrender of registration. - Appeal No. E/929/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 not having any activity for past six years. They had requested to treat Central Excise regis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te Thane I, undertaking to pay to the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Kalyan-IV, Commissionarate 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 excisable goods manufactured and remaining in the factory, which are liable for duty and there i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

asha 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 theRule 9 of Central Exicse Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 35/2001 CE(NT) dated 26/6/2001 and Chapter 2 of CBECs Central Excise Manual of supplementary Instructions and Annexure III as given in part 7 of CBECs Central Excise Manual of supplementary Instructions. Since th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y 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 Excise Registration. The appellant stopped their manufacturing activity in 2003 itself therefore as per Notificati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd. In separate proceedings the buyer company has been issued new registration as per .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent (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(184) ELT 13(Bom.)], according to which appellants surrender of registration cannot be accepted and Commissioner 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

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-CENT that they have filed the declaration in the form prescribed under Annexure III and provided all the information as required therein. It is also observed that clause 6 which reads as under: (6) De-registration: Every registered person, who ceases to carry on the operation for which h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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-registration is wrong and not acceptable. Moreover there is no provision in the Rule 9 or Notification No. 35/2001 CE(NT) that in case any duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version