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

2016 (6) TMI 275 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (6) TMI 275 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2016 (336) E.L.T. 153 (Tri. - 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 r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arises in future. Therefore it is of the view, after making substantial compliance 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 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

he Original Order and allowed the Revenues 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 not having any ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Superintendent Central Excise Range-IV, Division Kalyan-IV, Commissionarate 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 manuf .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 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 par .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Excise Registration. The appellant stop .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd. In sepa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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(184) ELT 13(Bom.)], according to which appellants sur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gistration, 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-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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant 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-registration is wrong and not acceptable. Moreover there is no provi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gistered 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 Honble High court held that compliance of provision of Notification 35/2001-CE(NT) necessary to prevent anybody from walking away from registered premises without discharging duty liability. In the present case, firstly new com .....

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