2019 (11) TMI 431 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Central Excise Registration Renewal

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the continuation of Central Excise Registration ... Restoration of revoked Central Excise Registration to the respondent /assessee - It appeared to Revenue that the respondent/assessee has obtained registration by mis-declaration and thus, contravened Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S ISHA MARBLES VERSUS BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [1995 (2) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the benefit of electric connection cannot be denied to Isha Marbles, which are in bonafide possession, after purchasing the premises under the auction proceedings, which was held by the Financial Corporation under the powers vested in it under the ‘State Financial Corporation Act’, it was also directed that Electricity Board can recover its electricity dues, which are contractual dues, from the earlier occupant under the process of law, but for the said reasons, cannot deny electricity connection to Isha Marbles. The withdrawal of registration under the facts and circumstances is unwarranted and uncalled for. Further, it is a fundamental right of every citizen to carry on trade and business or engage in any occupation for his livelihood, as is enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Further, there is no violation of provisions of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, which provides - every person, who produces or manufactures any excisable goods, shall get registered. Thus, without registration, the respondent/assessee, cannot carry on the manufacture of the excisable goods. Thus, the order of revocation is also in violation of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, particularly Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed Central Excise Registration to the respondent/assessee after its revocation by Order-in-Original.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Central Excise Registration RevocationThe case involved the revocation of Central Excise Registration of the respondent/assessee, M/s.R.N. Industries, due to alleged mis-declaration and contravention of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Department contended that the respondent obtained registration by misrepresentation. The Department recorded findings that the earlier occupant, Shri Ganpati Asbestos Pvt. Ltd., still existed at the premises in question with pending excise dues. The revocation was based on these grounds, accompanied by a penalty under Rule 27 of the CER, 2002.Issue 2: Commissioner (Appeals) DecisionThe Commissioner (Appeals) examined the sale deed between M/s. Shree Ganpati Asbestos Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Modi Sprinklers Pvt. Ltd., along with the rent deed between M/s. Modi Sprinklers and M/s. R.N. Industries. After considering the legal precedents cited by the assessee, the Commissioner found the revocation of registration unjustified. The Commissioner set aside the Order-in-Original, allowing the continuation of registration and directing the Department to pursue legal action against Modi Sprinklers Pvt. Ltd. if necessary.Issue 3: Revenue's AppealThe Revenue appealed the decision, arguing that allowing multiple registrations at the same premises would violate Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and create administrative challenges for the Department. The Revenue emphasized that the earlier occupant, Shri Ganpati Asbestos Pvt. Ltd., still held registration for the premises, making the respondent's registration invalid. The Revenue contended that the respondent's possession of the premises was irrelevant due to the prior registration.Issue 4: Respondent's DefenseThe respondent, through their counsel, asserted that they were in lawful possession of the premises from the current owner, Modi Sprinklers Pvt. Ltd., with a valid title recognized by the appropriate authority. They argued that the revocation was arbitrary, as the earlier occupant no longer operated from the premises. Citing legal precedents, the respondent contended that the registration should not be denied based on the previous occupant's pending dues.JudgmentThe Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found the revocation unwarranted and in violation of the fundamental right to carry on trade and business. It emphasized that the respondent's registration was valid, as they were in lawful possession of the premises and had met the requirements of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment affirmed the continuation of Central Excise Registration for the respondent/assessee, highlighting the importance of lawful possession and compliance with registration requirements under the Central Excise Rules.