Person-specific excise registration cannot be refused to a bona fide later occupier merely for prior defaults at the same premises.

Registration under the Central Excise scheme is person-specific and does not become a permanent burden on the premises. A subsequent bona fide occupier with a valid lease and permission to operate from the premises cannot be denied registration or a Customs warehouse licence merely because the earlier unit at the same site had defaulted in government dues. Old dues may still be pursued through revenue recovery mechanisms, but that does not create authority to refuse registration in the absence of a valid rule-based ground. The earlier contrary decision was treated as fact-specific and distinguished because it involved repeated defaults and misuse of the same premises.

---

---

Issues: Whether registration under the Central Excise laws and warehouse licence under the Customs Act could be denied to a subsequent bona fide applicant on the ground that the same premises had earlier been used by another EOU which had defaulted in payment of Government dues.

Analysis: The application was for registration in the name of the present occupier, who had obtained permission to operate from the premises and held a valid lease from the current owner. The earlier unit had been asked to close its operations, and the materials showed that the earlier permission had been withdrawn. The reasoning in the earlier decision relied upon by the department was examined and distinguished on the ground that it turned on its own facts, involving a pattern of successive defaults and misuse of the same premises. The governing scheme under the Central Excise registration provisions treated registration as one attached to the person who carries on the activity, and not as a permanent encumbrance on the premises. Recovery of old dues could proceed under the revenue recovery provisions, but that did not create power to refuse registration to a later bona fide transferee or occupant in the absence of a valid basis in the registration rules.

Conclusion: Denial of registration and warehouse licence on the sole ground of prior default by the earlier unit was not justified. The appellant was entitled to the registration certificate and warehouse licence.

---