Central excise registration revocation upheld where business transfer and stoppage of production required fresh registration under the rules.

Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules required a fresh registration certificate on transfer of business, and the existing certificate could not continue once production had stopped and the lease had ended. The holder's failure to surrender the certificate and seek de-registration supported revocation, especially because the challenge to lease termination elsewhere did not justify indefinite continuation of registration. Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.) authorised revocation or suspension where the holder breached the Act or the rules, and a cited decision under a different rule was treated as inapplicable. The registration certificate revocation was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the registration certificate granted under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be revoked when the business stood transferred or production had ceased and the holder did not surrender the certificate and seek de-registration.

Analysis: The certificate-holder was required to comply with the obligation under sub-rule (5) of Rule 174 that, on transfer of business, the transferee must obtain a fresh certificate. The termination of the lease and stoppage of production meant that the existing registration could not be allowed to continue indefinitely merely because the termination was under challenge elsewhere. The Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.) empowered revocation or suspension of a registration certificate where its holder had breached the Act or the rules. The cited decision dealing with a different rule governing a different contravention was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The revocation of the registration certificate was justified, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

---