Tribunal reinstates revoked amendment in registration certificate, citing compliance with Central Excise Rules.

The Tribunal overturned the revocation of an amendment in the registration certificate, finding that the appellant's premises were interconnected and satisfied the conditions under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The revocation was deemed contrary to law, and the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief if necessary. The decision was rendered on 15-2-2016.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against revocation of amendment in registration certificate.

Analysis:
The appellant applied for an amendment to their registration certificate to include a new premises in the same plot number. The amendment was initially allowed but later revoked, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contended that the revocation was based on an extended period of limitation and that both premises were part of the same plot, connected by a private road. The appellant argued that separate registration was not required as per Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

The Assistant Commissioner revoked the amendment based on Notification No. 29/2003-C.E. (N.T.). However, the Tribunal found that both premises were part of the same plot and connected by a private road, satisfying the conditions under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal emphasized that separate registration was not necessary in this case as the premises were interlinked and shared common factors indicative of inter-linkage of the manufacturing process.

The Tribunal held that the revocation of the amendment in the registration certificate was contrary to law. It set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, if any. The decision was pronounced in open court on 15-2-2016.

---