https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51141 Common central excise registration under Rule 174 was available where sugar and distillery units were situated in the same factory under an approved revised ground plan and operated with indicators of unified administration and fiscal control, including a common PAN and trade tax filings. The contrary view was rejected, and a single registration for both units was required. An adverse determination on registration constituted a quasi-judicial decision and required a personal hearing and procedural fairness. Denial without that opportunity violated natural justice, vitiating the proceedings and resulting in the common-registration claim succeeding. en-us Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:09:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51141 Common central excise registration under Rule 174 was available where sugar and distillery units were situated in the same factory under an approved revised ground plan and operated with indicators of unified administration and fiscal control, including a common PAN and trade tax filings. The contrary view was rejected, and a single registration for both units was required. An adverse determination on registration constituted a quasi-judicial decision and required a personal hearing and procedural fairness. Denial without that opportunity violated natural justice, vitiating the proceedings and resulting in the common-registration claim succeeding. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51141