AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tex Limited was a lessee of a plot in an industrial estate owned by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. The said Company had obtained a registration under Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the said Act") read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short "the said Rules"). The said Company transferred its rights in respect of the plot to the Respondent after obtaining consent of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. On 7 September 2009, the Respondent applied for registration under Section 6 of the said Act in respect of the same plot. The show cause notice was issued to the Respondent calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why the Application for registration should not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceable demand against the predecessor of the Respondent. In fact, in paragraph 26 of the order, he has recorded a finding of fact that the predecessor of the Respondent has surrendered its Registration Certificate on 18 June 2009 along with Annexure III and an undertaking/bond to abide by the liability of the Government dues, if any, after the same is confirmed. Another finding of fact recorded is that the plot was transferred in the name of the Respondent by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Lessor) on 20 January 2009 before the show cause notice was issued demanding duty from the predecessor of the Respondent. It was also observed that there is no recoverable demand. We have perused the order of the Commissioner (Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carry on the business to apply for deregistration. Would that mean in the absence of the person who has closed or sold the business or premises, applying for deregistration, there is no jurisdiction to grant another person registration of the premises as in the case of a bona fide transferee for value or for that to the owner of the premises whose lessee has defaulted in payment of excise dues. Section 6 and Rule 9 and the notification contemplates that it is the person who must be registered. Neither Section 6 nor Rule 9 and the Notification is a provision for enforcing the claim for dues of the department. That is contained in different provisions. An immovable property by itself cannot be sold unless the owner of the premises is defaulte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....P.), In paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held thus : " 6. Though the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that in view of the existing registration which has not been surrendered, second registration cannot be issued. There is nothing which can be read into this Rule that it is a registration certificate issued for the purpose of carrying out a trade in a particular premises by a particular party. There is no statutory provision pointed out either under the Act or the Rules that in the premises if a particular person is having a registration, second registration certificate cannot be issued. According to subrule (11) if any holder of a certificate has violated any rule or has found to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tage." 8. We find that the decision of this Court in the case of Tata Metaliks Limited (supra) has been followed by several other High Courts. 9. After having perused Rule 9 of the said Rules and the Circular issued by the Central Board Customs, we find that the issue of alleged liability of the predecessor of the Respondent to pay demand was completely irrelevant for the consideration of Application made by the Respondent under Section 6 of the said Act and Rule 9 of the said Rules. If the Respondent had complied with all the requirements of law, there was no impediment in the way of granting registration to the Respondent notwithstanding pending proceedings against its predecessor for adjudication of the demand made from the predece....