Valid surrender of excise registration upheld where pending claims were not enforceable dues and indemnity bond protected Revenue.

A surrendered registration certificate for disputed premises was treated as compliant with Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.) under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 because pending appeals and unquantified claims did not amount to enforceable dues on the surrender date. The possibility of later adjudication did not invalidate the surrender, since any subsequently quantified dues could still be recovered under the Central Excise law and the indemnity bond furnished by the surrendering registrant further protected the Revenue. On that basis, the earlier registration certificate was validly surrendered and the respondents were entitled to inclusion of the premises in their registration certificate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier registrant had validly surrendered the registration certificate for the disputed premises despite pending adjudication of dues, and whether the respondents were entitled to inclusion of that premises in their registration certificate.

Analysis: The surrender was treated as compliant with the conditions under Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. Pending appeals and unquantified claims were held not to amount to enforceable dues or pending demands on the date of surrender. Any dues ultimately adjudged could be recovered under the Central Excise law, and the indemnity bond furnished by the surrendering registrant further secured the Revenue. The contrary objection based on the existence of dues was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The earlier registration certificate was validly surrendered, and the respondents were entitled to registration of the disputed premises. The departmental appeal failed.

---