TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that M/s. Saradhambal Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore, had applied for registration as a manufacturer of excisable goods from the premises at SF No.10/1, Kunnathur Road, Uthukuli. The predecessor registrant M/s. Gowri Steel Rolling Mills (GSRM) had surrendered the registration certificate issued to it. However, the lower authorities refused to cancel the same on the ground that he had not complied with the formalities for surrender of the registration prescribed in Notification No.35/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001. As per the Notification, the registrant who wishes to surrender the registration has to give a declaration to the effect that no government dues are pending against it under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Rules ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, their Lordships had held that the authority competent to issue registration could not decline an application for registration on the ground that the applicant's predecessor was in arrears. The learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble High Court had passed the above judgment while interpreting the scope of Rule 174 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and that the extant provisions corresponding to the provisions considered by the High Court were effectively the same. The learned Counsel took me through the judgment wherein the High Court had recorded that the predecessor registrant in the said case from whom the dues were claimed had informed the department that they had undertaken to fulfill their liability provided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rejection of application of the appellant to register it as a manufacturer of excisable goods in respect of the premises owned by GSRM on the ground that there were several Show Cause Notices involving demands totaling above Rs.93 lakhs issued to them and pending decision. Moreover, GSRM had not furnished a declaration to the effect that no governmental dues under the Act or Rules were pending against them. I find that the appellants had offered to furnish a joint undertaking with SSI to secure the demands involved in the Show Cause Notices when they became amounts due to the Government. The premises continued to be in the possession of GSRM. The appellant seeks to occupy the premises on lease basis. Therefore, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondents have no jurisdiction to decline to issue the certificate of registration or return the application on the ground that the petitioners - predecessor was in arrears. Without quantifying his arrears or taking into consideration his dues or taking any steps for cancellation of his certificate or revocation of his certificate under sub-rule (11), the authorities cannot decline to issue a registration certificate as envisaged by Rule 174 (9) to the petitioner. As a necessary consequence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for issuance of an appropriate certificate in accordance with law within 15 days from the date of submission of the application. Otherwise, the deeming provisi....