TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 275
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The fact of the case is that the appellant vide their letter dated 18/6/2009 submitted the registration certificate to the Superintendent of Central Excise for surrender of registration. As per the provision of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) dated 26/6/2001 in the annexure III, appellant stated that their factory on the said premises is closed since 2003 and that they are not having any activity for past six years. They had requested to treat Central Excise registration as surrendered and cancelled. They also stated in Annexure III. During the period of registration they have been issued with show cause notice No. V/Adj/15-85-/PI/KII/MII/2002 dated 3/5/2002 demanding duty of Rs. 2,52,09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral Exicse Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 35/2001 CE(NT) dated 26/6/2001 and Chapter 2 of CBECs Central Excise Manual of supplementary Instructions and Annexure III as given in part 7 of CBECs Central Excise Manual of supplementary Instructions. Since the surrender of registration certificate for de-registration is not according to the law, furnishing of indemnity bond or undertaking is also not legal, proper and valid. The Adjudicating authority after considering reply and written submission by the appellant, adjudicated the show cause notice wherein surrender and de-registration of Central Excise Registration was held proper, legal and valid and accordingly dropped the proceedings initiated under Show cause notice dated 25/9/200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istration as per the order of this Tribunal reported in M/s. Monomer Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. CC Thane[2015(316) ELT 670 Tri)]. She submits that at one time same premises cannot be remained registered in the name of two persons therefore one registration in the name of buyer company M/s. Monomer Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd has been issued then registration of appellant will not survive, accordingly, department should have cancelled the registration of the appellant. 4. Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that there is demand case pending against appellant therefore to safeguard revenue, appellant cannot be de-registered.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the appellant ceased to carry on the operation in factory since 2003. They also filed declaration in prescribed form in Annexure III alongwith registration certificate. After making above compliance, the appellant shall be de-registered. I observed that there is no provision to deny the de-registration in a case when the assessee ceased to be a manufacturer. The department denied de-registration only on the ground that there is case of demand of duty is pending against the appellant. I find that the case is in the stage of show cause notice and there is no confirmed demand against the appellant therefore entire basis for denial of de-registration is wrong and not acceptable. Moreover there is no provision in the Rule 9 or Notification No....