<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (8) TMI 247 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215562</link>
    <description>Registration under the Central Excise scheme is person-specific and does not become a permanent burden on the premises. A subsequent bona fide occupier with a valid lease and permission to operate from the premises cannot be denied registration or a Customs warehouse licence merely because the earlier unit at the same site had defaulted in government dues. Old dues may still be pursued through revenue recovery mechanisms, but that does not create authority to refuse registration in the absence of a valid rule-based ground. The earlier contrary decision was treated as fact-specific and distinguished because it involved repeated defaults and misuse of the same premises.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 247 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215562</link>
      <description>Registration under the Central Excise scheme is person-specific and does not become a permanent burden on the premises. A subsequent bona fide occupier with a valid lease and permission to operate from the premises cannot be denied registration or a Customs warehouse licence merely because the earlier unit at the same site had defaulted in government dues. Old dues may still be pursued through revenue recovery mechanisms, but that does not create authority to refuse registration in the absence of a valid rule-based ground. The earlier contrary decision was treated as fact-specific and distinguished because it involved repeated defaults and misuse of the same premises.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>