Separate statutory permission and factory registration must be decided by the competent authority before registration is refused.

Registration of factory premises under Rule 174 could not be treated as practically effective where separate permission under Rule 51A to bring or retain duty-paid goods had not yet been obtained; the two provisions operate in different fields, and registration alone would not authorise use of the premises until that permission was granted. However, the appellate authority should not itself decide the Rule 51A permission issue where no application had first been made to the competent authority; that question had to be determined by the statutory authority empowered under Rule 51A. The order refusing registration was set aside and the matter was left pending for decision on the permission application first.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether registration under Rule 174 could be refused merely because permission under Rule 51A for bringing or retaining duty-paid goods in the factory had not yet been obtained; (ii) whether the appellate authority should itself decide the question of permission under Rule 51A instead of leaving it to the competent authority.

Issue (i): Whether registration under Rule 174 could be refused merely because permission under Rule 51A for bringing or retaining duty-paid goods in the factory had not yet been obtained.

Analysis: Rule 174 contemplates registration with reference to the specified premises where excisable goods are to be kept. The application itself sought registration of the factory premises. Although registration may be granted in theory, it would serve no practical purpose without permission under Rule 51A to bring or retain duty-paid goods in the factory. The two provisions operate in different fields, and registration alone would not enable the appellant to act upon it until the separate permission was obtained.

Conclusion: The refusal of registration solely on the ground that permission under Rule 51A had not been obtained was not sustainable in the circumstances.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate authority should itself decide the question of permission under Rule 51A instead of leaving it to the competent authority.

Analysis: Rule 51A authorises the Commissioner or the Board to permit duty-paid goods to enter or be retained in a factory, subject to conditions and limitations. Since no application had yet been made to the competent authority, the appellate authority had no occasion to determine whether such permission was required on the facts. The proper course was to leave that question to the authority empowered under Rule 51A and then have the appeal decided thereafter according to law.

Conclusion: The appellate authority ought not to have decided the Rule 51A issue on merits and the matter was to be considered by the competent authority first.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was kept pending until the Rule 51A application was decided by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a separate statutory permission is required for the practical use of registered premises, refusal of registration cannot be treated as final on the footing that such permission has not yet been granted, and the permission question must first be decided by the authority designated by the statute.

---