TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 451
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carrying on business from the following address: "Plot No.25A, Besant Street, Santacruz (West), Mumbai400 954." The Petitioners filed Central Excise returns before the Third Respondent. With effect from 7 June 2004, the Petitioners shifted their office to new premises, namely, 4044A, Dheeraj Heritage, 4th Floor, S.V.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai400 054. By a letter dated 8 July 2004, the Petitioners intimated the Third Respondent of having shifted their premises to a new location. The Petitioners have stated that they discontinued carrying on business from the earlier premises and that they were of the view bona fide that once a new address is communicated to the Respondents, the existing registration is continued to be operated and that no new registration would be required to be obtained. As a matter of fact, both, the earlier premises and the new premises fell within the jurisdiction of the same Central Excise office. The Petitioners filed Nil Central Excise returns between June 2004 and March 2010. The Central Excise returns continued to mention the existing Central Excise registration number. These returns were accep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Second Respondents to either amend the existing Registration Certificate or to issue a fresh Registration Certificate effective from 8 July 2004 in respect of the new premises. 6. An affidavit in reply has been filed in these proceedings by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. The sum and substance of the reply is that the Registration Certificate that was granted to the Petitioners mandated several conditions of compliance including that the certificate was valid only for the premises and for the purpose specified in the application; that the Registration Certificate was not transferable and that no correction or change would be valid unless a request for correction or change was applied for and attested by the Superintendent of Central Excise. According to the Respondents, it was only after the Department initiated action that the Petitioners surrendered the old Registration Certificate on 16 September 2010 and applied online for issuance of a fresh Registration Certificate on 28 September 2010 in respect of the present address. The Department allowed the application for new registration, but kept the issue of the surrender of the old Registration Certificate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by making an application in the form specified in AnnexureI, IA or IB, as the case may be. If the person has more than one premises requiring registration, separate registration has to be obtained for each such premises. However, in certain situations a person who has more than one premises requiring registration may obtain a single registration for all such premises which fall within the jurisdiction of one Commissioner of Central Excise subject to the condition of declaring the details of all such premises while making an application. Provisions have been made for a transfer of business in which case, the transferee has to get himself registered afresh. Every registered person who ceases to carry on the operation for which he is registered has to deregister himself by making a declaration in the specified form in AnnexureIII and by depositing his registration certificate with the Superintendent of Central Excise. On breach of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, a registration certificate may be revoked or suspended. 8. The Rules emphasize the importance of the act of registration. Under Rule 9, it is mandatory for every person who....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in the new premises. The Petitioners thereupon applied for a fresh registration on 28 September 2010 and a registration certificate has been issued to them in January 2011. 11. In assessing the facts of this case, it must be noted that in the affidavit in reply that has been filed by the Department, there is no allegation of any fraud or improper conduct on the part of the Petitioners diverted at excise evasion. Even before the Court, Learned Counsel for the Revenue has not disputed the bona fides of the Petitioners. The Department has, in fact, stated in the affidavit in reply that between 2004 and 2010, the Petitioners have filed nil returns and since there was no revenue impact, there was no occasion for the Revenue to take any action. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has submitted that having due regard to the fact that the Petitioners as far back as on 8 July 2004 applied to the jurisdictional Superintendent to make a note of the change in the address of the business premises, the breach, if any, on their part was of a technical or venial nature. We would like to clarify that this Court would not, while interpreting the provisions of Rule 9, place any....