9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by establishing a new grinding unit known as M/s Mangalam Grinding Unit (MGU). The MGU and the manufacturing facilities then existing were not only on the same piece of land, but it was also connected by a private road within its leased land and common boundary wall. Though there was distance of approximately 2 kms. Between the MGU and the then existing manufacturing facilities, however, it was on the same plot and there is no scope of any other third party for entry in between. Though the respondent assessee has a leased common land with common boundary wall, and a proper private road between the two contiguous plots of land, however as the MGU was at a distance of about 2 kms., the respondent-assessee had also installed a dedicated conveyor belt for transport of clinker and cement between the two units. The respondent- assessee had approached the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner, Kota vide their letter dated 15.06.2012 intimating about the Mangalam Grinding Unit (MGU) and a ground plan of the appellant showing the existing manufacturing facilities and also location of the present MGU. The respondent assessee had requested the Assistant Commissioner for amendment to the existing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March, 2014. Further, both the units were having separate boundary wall and there was no possibility of internal movement of the goods, on the date of inspection. Further the revised map submitted by the respondent to the Department did not show any internal gate in the boundary wall. Thus, evidently the clinker manufactured in the existing unit was required to be taken outside the registered factory premises for transfer to the new Mangalam Grinding unit. Further, the amended registration dated 06.09.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner have no indication about the new addition in the existing area of the factory premises. 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Kota Division revoked the amendment in the registration certificate without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee, vide his order dated 27.11.2013. 6. In the meanwhile, the respondent-assessee by their application dated 22.11.2013 requested the Commissioner of Central Excise for regularisation of their amended registration granted by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of para 3.2 of the CBEC's manual, for common registration. Another letter of even date was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pre-deposit - Rs. 2,85,82,520/- disallowed credit). 16. Tribunal vide its Final order dated 06.11.2015 had dismissed the appeal of Revenue against Commissioner (Appeal)'s Order in appeal dated 08.01.2015 for revocation of single registration. 17. Revenue filed appeal against the said Final order of the Tribunal dated 06.11.2015 for revocation of single registration before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, who vide order dated 25.05.2016 had dismissed appeal of the Revenue, with following observation(s):- "We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. A right was accrued with registration in favour of the assessee. If common registration was to be revoked, nobody prevented the revenue to pass proper order by giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The revenue cannot pass unilateral order without hearing other party. It is more so when allegations have been made for playing fraud on the department. In view of above, we do not find any substance in the appeal for challenge to the order of the Tribunal so as the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The revenue would, however, be not preclud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Excise Rule, 2002, every person, who manufactures excisable goods shall get registered. Further Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001, as amended, issued under Rule 9 provides that if a person has more than one premises requiring registration, separate registration certificate shall be obtained for each of such premises. A perusal of above shows that if there is one premise then only one registration is required. Only if there are more than one premises, separate registration would be required for each of the premises. I find that in the present case the premises in which existing unit and the new grinding unit are situated is only one premise. Both are situated on the same undivided piece of land allotted to the appellants in the year 1978. There is nothing in between blocking the connectivity. During the visit of the officers of anti evasion on 22.11.2013 a Panchnama was prepared and a few photographs were taken. A perusal of panchnama dated 22.11.2013 and the photographs shows that the existing unit and the new grinding unit were already connected with an internal private motorable road and further construction of conveyor system connecting the two was already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e immediately approached the jurisdictional Commissioner by their application dated 22.11.2013 and the learned Commissioner after examining the facts and on being satisfied have been pleased to grant common registration by his communication dated 31.01.2014. Thus, the issue of common registration stood concluded and settled in favour of the respondent-assessee by the order of the superior officer in rank, under the 'doctrine of merger'. Further, the order of revocation of amendment of registration passed by the Deputy Commissioner, also stood concluded in favour of the respondent -assessee by the order dated 25.02.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan. Thus, the issue of present show cause notice dated 07.12.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner, is hit both by 'doctrine of merger' and is also hit by 'in subordination' in view of the order of the learned Commissioner dated 31.01.2014 granting common registration. 26. Learned Counsel further states that the Commissioner (Appeals) have granted relief both on merits as well as under the 'doctrine of merger', observing that the issue attained finality. He further relies on the ruling of Madras High Court in the case of Rajshree Sugars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
