TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1090
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e officials of the Revenue visited the units on 13th January 2015, it was found that production activity was still going on in the premises of the Respondent No.1 and no proper records were being maintained in both the Units. Therefore, the Show Cause Notice came to be issued to both the Respondents. In the due course the demands were confirmed by the adjudicating authority. However, when the matter came up before the Commissioner Appeals, he has held that the Respondent No.2 has bought the entire business of Respondent No. 1, the finished goods of the Respondent No.1 happened to be the inputs for Respondent No.2, who were paying the Excise Duty while clearing their finished goods. Therefore, holding that the entire issue has resulted in a no revenue loss situation to the Department, he has set aside the demands confirmed against both the Respondents. 3. The Learned AR reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the Commissioner(Appeals) has erred in setting aside the demands and he prays that the present appeals may be allowed. 4. The Learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the initial decision to purchase the unit of Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. We find that the Commissioner(Appeals),vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal has given the following detailed findings: "8.5 The appellant no.2 contended that the date relied upon by the Department for determining ownership/transfer of the unit deprives the appellant of the rightful possession of the manufacturing unit Barak IspatPvt.Ltd. as agreed upon, i.e. since 12.01.2015 and such ownership cannot be revoked or questioned in relation to the date of filing of any application of registration or surrender of registration by appellant no.1, which cannot precede but can only succeed the date of actual transfer. The online filing of the surrender application by M/s. Barak Alloy is a procedural requirement only, which involves a number of aspects which are beyond control of the appellant, like Factory License cancellation or amendment of both the seller and purchaser of the unit, ground plan certification of the purchaser, amendment of various other licenses and registrations, old issues or due payments of the seller, if any, which need to be completed or complied before the jurisdictional authorities etc. The late filing of the said application by the seller, M/s. Barak Allo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ured by the Appellant No.1 which was acquired by them for manufacture of their final products viz. TMT Bar, Miss Roll etc. has been paid by the Appellant No.2 and demand of duty twice for the same goods is not legally justified. However, I observe that the Appellant No.2 has started their production/clearance activity in the premises of acquired factory before getting amendment of their registration certificate as envisage under Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No.35/2001(N.T.),dated 26.06.2001 and thus violates the provision of Rule 25(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned goods under question liable to confiscation. However, since the goods are not physically available for confiscation I restrain to confiscate the goods. However, the Appellant No.2 is liable to penalty in terms of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, I find that the appellant no.1 before surrendering their registration certificate they allowed the appellant no.2 to carryout production/clearance activity in their premises and thus they violated the provision as laid in the Notification No.35/2001 (N.T.) dated 26.06.2001 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Companies Act, having its Registered Office at G. C. College Road, Silchar under P.O. & P. S. Silchar, District- Cachar, Assam, represented by its Director Contd. 5000Rs LINDIA NON JU 4000 . R$5000 Sula Full ya @ FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES Partner BARAK ALLOY Sri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal S/o Lt. Prakash Chand Agarwal resident of G. C. College Road, Silchar, P.S. Silchar, District- Cachar, Assam, by nationality Indian, by faith Hindu, by Profession - Business, hereinafter called the "PURCHASER" (Which expression shall mean and include himself, his heirs, executors, legal representatives and or assigns) of the OTHER PART. ( PAN-AAA (B8413H) WHEREAS the land described below alongwith other lands earlier belonged to Sri Sunil Kumar Chanda, a recorded pattadar who sold the schedule land in favour of Barak Valley Alloys Pvt. Ltd. alongwith other land Contd FILED IN COURT ON CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS A. 1 3 MAY 2026 CESTAT KOLKATA FORM RC Central Excise Registration Certificate [Under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002] This is to certify. subject to conditions specified below, that M's BARAK ISPAT PVT LTD .MANUFACTURING OF EXC....