2016 (3) TMI 943 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Appeal Granted: Denial of De-registration Overturned

Akasha Syncotex Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the department's denial of de-registration. It concluded that the appellant had complied with ... Surrender of Central Excise Registration - Held that:- In the present case, firstly new company M/s. Monomer Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd has been issued new registration therefore the present appellant cannot be remained as registered person. As regard compliance of the provision of the notification, requirement is only to file declaration, the appellant have filed declaration in Annexure III and disclosed the entire fact including the status of their case which is pending at show cause notice stage. Secondly, appellant even though, there is no confirmed demand, in view of show cause notice, executed indemnity bond wherein they have undertaken to discharge the Central Excise duty liability as and when it arises in future. Therefore it is of the view, after making substantial compliance of the provision there is no reason to deny the de-registration of the appellant. Even, if it is assumed that appellant's registration should not be cancelled, in such case new registration to any other person on the same premises cannot be given and if that be so then no operation can be carried out in the said premises. In my view, it is a national loss to stop production in any factory premises. The law cannot be such by which production in this country can be suspended for any reason. In view of my above observations, it is of the considered view that Adjudicating authority is legally and correctly ordered for de-registration of the appellant and accepted the surrender of registration. Therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the appellant. Issues:1. Surrender of Central Excise Registration by the appellant.2. Validity of surrender and de-registration process.3. Pending demand case against the appellant.4. Compliance with Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) requirements.5. Denial of de-registration by the department.6. Legal implications of ceasing manufacturing activity.7. Interpretation of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.Issue 1: Surrender of Central Excise Registration by the appellantThe appellant submitted a letter for surrendering their Central Excise registration, citing the closure of their factory since 2003 and no activity for the past six years. They requested cancellation of the registration and stated that all duties had been paid. The department issued a show cause notice questioning the legality of the surrender, leading to an appeal by the Revenue.Issue 2: Validity of surrender and de-registration processThe appellant argued that they complied with the prescribed procedure for surrendering the registration as per Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT). They contended that since no confirmed demand was pending against them and they had followed Annexure III requirements, de-registration should be allowed. The department, however, opposed the surrender citing pending demand cases and referred to legal precedents to support their stance.Issue 3: Pending demand case against the appellantThe key point of contention was the pending demand case against the appellant. The department argued that de-registration should not be permitted due to this pending case to safeguard revenue. However, the appellant maintained that since no confirmed demand existed, de-registration should be allowed.Issue 4: Compliance with Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) requirementsThe appellant emphasized their compliance with the requirements of Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) by filing the necessary declaration and providing all relevant information. They argued that this compliance should warrant de-registration, especially considering the cessation of manufacturing activity since 2003.Issue 5: Denial of de-registration by the departmentThe department's denial of de-registration was primarily based on the existence of a pending demand case against the appellant. However, the appellant's counsel highlighted that the absence of a confirmed demand and the fulfillment of Annexure III requirements should allow for de-registration.Issue 6: Legal implications of ceasing manufacturing activityThe judgment delved into the legal implications of ceasing manufacturing activity and the process for surrendering Central Excise registration. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant rules and notifications to determine the validity of the appellant's request for de-registration.Issue 7: Interpretation of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002The Tribunal interpreted Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, in light of the appellant's case. It concluded that the appellant had complied with the necessary procedures for surrendering the registration and that the absence of a confirmed demand justified allowing the de-registration.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the de-registration process outlined in the relevant notifications and rules.