https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94064 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. en-us Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:49:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94064 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94064