https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243407 The court upheld the cancellation of the appellant's registration as a manufacturer under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant's lack of a physical manufacturing unit with machinery did not meet the Act's definition of a 'factory' and 'manufacturer.' The court emphasized the importance of having a physical manufacturing location for registration, dismissing the appellant's reliance on Notification No. 214/86-CE and cautioning against granting manufacturer status without a proper setup to prevent misuse and regulatory challenges. The decision, dated 09.01.2014, affirmed the authorities' cancellation of the registration. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243407 The court upheld the cancellation of the appellant's registration as a manufacturer under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant's lack of a physical manufacturing unit with machinery did not meet the Act's definition of a 'factory' and 'manufacturer.' The court emphasized the importance of having a physical manufacturing location for registration, dismissing the appellant's reliance on Notification No. 214/86-CE and cautioning against granting manufacturer status without a proper setup to prevent misuse and regulatory challenges. The decision, dated 09.01.2014, affirmed the authorities' cancellation of the registration. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 09 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243407