Validity of excise registration preserved under transitional rules; later demand for ex post facto approval could not sustain penalty.

Existing excise registration remained valid for the separated premises because Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 preserved registrations granted under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the Department had itself issued a revised PAN-based certificate in 2004 permitting continued operations. In the absence of any material change in facts, the Department could not reopen the issue in 2005 merely on the ground that ex post facto approval had not been obtained for combined registration. The later insistence on such approval was therefore unjustified, and the penalty was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the existing registration granted under the erstwhile excise regime and renewed under the later regime remained valid for the separated premises, and whether penalty could be imposed for not obtaining ex post facto approval of the Commissioner for single registration.

Analysis: Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 preserved the validity of registration granted under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Department had also issued a revised PAN-based registration certificate in 2004 and allowed the assessee to continue operating under the same registration. No material change in facts was shown to justify reopening the issue in 2005. The objection related only to absence of ex post facto approval for combined registration, but the Department itself had not treated the registration as invalid and had not taken effective steps to enforce the original direction. In these circumstances, the requirement of ex post facto approval could not be insisted upon at a much later stage.

Conclusion: The registration certificate issued in 1994 and renewed in 2004 was held to be valid for the assessee's operations, and the penalty was unsustainable.

---