https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78561 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. en-us Thu, 06 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Nov 2010 11:57:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78561 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 06 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78561