TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal rejects merger, upholds de-registration of Unit II under Central Excise Law.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SHILLONG Versus DHARMAPAL SATYAPAL LTD.</h3> The Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal by rejecting the merger of Unit No. II with Unit No. I under the Central Excise Law. ... Registration Certificate - Surrender of, on closure of units - Order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Legality of - Merger of units Issues:1. Surrender of Registration of Unit No. II2. Merger of premises of Unit No. II with Unit No. IAnalysis:Surrender of Registration of Unit No. II:The case involved a Private Ltd. Company with two registrations, Unit No. I and Unit No. II, under Central Excise law. Unit No. II was closed down, and the appellants sought to surrender its registration and merge its premises with Unit No. I. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the merger request, citing potential deception of government policy regarding exemptions. However, the Commissioner of Excise (Appeals) allowed the appeal, permitting the surrender and de-registration of Unit No. II. The Appellate Tribunal found no valid reason to reject the surrender, emphasizing that a surrender can be accepted if all dues for the registered premises have been cleared. Since no pending dues were shown against Unit No. II, the Tribunal upheld the surrender as per the Commissioner's decision.Merger of premises of Unit No. II with Unit No. I:Regarding the merger of Unit No. II with Unit No. I, the Tribunal noted that there were no specific provisions in the Central Excise Act or Rules empowering the Commissioner to order such a merger. The Tribunal highlighted that certain CBEC orders allowing adjacent units to share one license/registration did not imply the authority to order a merger under the Central Excise Law. Consequently, the Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to permit the merger. As a result, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal by setting aside the direction for merger while upholding the surrender of Unit No. II's registration.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment partly allowed the Revenue's appeal by rejecting the merger of Unit No. II with Unit No. I, but upheld the surrender of Unit No. II's registration as there were no pending dues against the unit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
