2015 (1) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Ltd. who initially was the lessee of the factory premises from MIDC. As M/s Akasha Syncotex Ltd. closed the business from the said premises and applied for cancellation of Central Excise registration, the appellant being interested party for taking the said premises had entered into a agreement with M/s. Akasha Syncotex Ltd. and with due permission from MIDC, the factory premises got leased out in the name of the appellant. The appellant applied for registration under Central Excise Act for the product manufactured by them. A show-cause notice was issued to deny Central Excise registration which was adjudicated and held in favour of the appellant that they are entitled for registration but on appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the said facts are not applicable to the facts of this case. He further submits that the facts of Manibhadra Processors are similar to the facts of this case, therefore, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be upheld. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. In the case of Tata Metaliks Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has considered the issue and thereafter came to a conclusion in as under:               "A perusal of Section 6 makes it absolutely clear that who has to be registered is the prescribed person. Under the rules also, it is the person who has to get registered. The notification in Clause (2) only sets out that if such re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, clearly acted without jurisdiction in refusing to grant registration on the specious plea that M/s. Usha Ispat whose assets has been sold and purchased by the Petitioners has not applied for deregistration. In the absence of a specific power to deny registration, the alternate would be whether there would be implied power. Neither Section 6 or Rule 9 or for that matter the notification confers such power. The right of revenue however, would subsist for recovery of dues both against the defaulter or the transferee if the predicates for recovery are met. An incidental aspect of the matter would be if the licence is for a particular period, on expiry of that period, the registration certificate would cease to be operative. In such cases, t....