Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Dharmapal Satyapal Ltd. on 20 January, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(186)ELT235(TRI-KOLKATA)
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. The appellants herein a Private Ltd. Company, are having two registrations as Unit No. I and Unit No. II, tinder the Central Excise registrations required by an assessee under the Central Excise law. Unit No. II was closed down due to various reasons and appellants applied to surrender the Registration granted to the Unit No. II as also to merge the premises of Unit No. II with the registered premises of Unit No. I. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati rejected the request of merger of Unit No. II with Unit No. I and the appellants surrender of Registration certificates of the Unit No. II on the ground that prayer for merger if granted, would deceive Government policy by way of extention of benefit under Notification No. 8/2004-C.E. the Unit which was already closed is not eligible for exemption. The Commissioner of Excise (Appeals) held that the appellants' request for merger/de-registration of Unit No. II be acceded to, and accordingly, allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
2. After hearing both sides in this appeal filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeal) we find :
(a) There is no reason and ground to justify for non-acceptance of the surrender. The surrender of Registration by an assessee can be accepted if all dues for that registered premises have been discharged. No material was brought to us for any dues under the Central Excise law against Unit No. II, to show that the same was pending. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards surrender.
(b) As regards the Commissioner (Appeals') Order of permitting merger of the premises of Unit No. II with Unit No. I, we find no provisions in the Central Excise Act or the Rules to have the Commissioner to have ordered in those terms, none was shown to us except certain orders of the CBEC which prescribes that two units adjacent to each other could be granted one licence/registration. These orders cannot be interpreted to mean that merger of the two units could be ordered by the officers-in-charge under the Central Excise Law. We, therefore, do not hold that the order of merger as given in the Commissioner (Appeals'). Order impugned before us is not correct to that effect.
3. In view of the above findings, this appeal of Revenue is partly allowed by setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals') directions accepting merger. But we uphold the impugned order accepting surrender of the Registration.