Whether a separate registration of the premises is required if such premises is separated by privately build road? If once the registration is given by Assistant Commissioner can it revoked on the grounds that such registration is not given by proper auth

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3287

Case:- THAKKAR STEEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IV

Citation:- 2016 (339) E.L.T. 596 (Tri. - Chan.)

Brief Facts:-The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the amendment made in their registration certificate has been revoked.The facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the Central Excise Department and having the registration certificate for trading of excisable goods to be used in manufacture of excisable goods in their premises at plot no. 53/19, Industrial Area, NIT, Faridabad. The appellant applied for amendment of their registration certificate for the reason that in the same plot number, they have taken another premises called as plot no. 53/1, NIT, Industrial Area, Faridabad which has required to be added in the certificate. A proper application was filed by the appellant on 4-4-2011 and the same was accepted, an amendment to the registration certificate was allowed by order dated 3-5-2011 by amending their registration certificate. Later on, a letter was issued to the appellant on 2-1-2013 for denial of amendment dated 3-5-2011 and consequently, a show cause notice was issued on 31-5-2013 for revocation of amendment done in the registration certificate. Both the authorities below, denied amendment in the registration certificate and also imposed penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.

Appellant’s Contentions:-The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that initially the appellant applied for amendment in registration the same was allowed and later on, a show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The ld. Counsel further submits that plot no. 53/19 is the part of a composite plot number 53 on which the owner of the plot has made 19 units and internal road for private use has been constructed. The appellant is an integral part of the said plot no. 53 and having a gate between the two premises, therefore, the appellant has rightly applied for amendment in registration certificate as per Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside.
Respondent’s Contentions:-The ld. AR submits that the amendment in the registration certificate has been revoked in the light of the Notification No. 29/2003-C.E. (N.T.).
Reasoning Of Judgement-Heard the parties and considered the submissions. In this case, it is not disputed that both the premises of the appellants are part of plot no. 53. In fact both the premises are in one plot and a private road has been constructed therein for to access the other owners of the plot. By constructing a private road as per Rule 9(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, a person is required for separate registration as per 3.2 of Chapter 2 of the said rules which is reproduced as under :
”separate registration is required in respect of separate 3.2 premises except in cases where two or no premises are actually part of the same factory (where processes are interlinked), but are segregated by road, canal or railway-line. The fact that the two premises are part of the same factory will be decided by Commissioner of Central Ex1cise based on factors, such as :
1.     Interlinked process product manufactured/produced in one premises are substantially used in our premises for manufacture of final products.
2.     Large number of raw materials are common and received/proposed to be received commonly both/all the premises.
3.     Common electricity supplies.
4.     There is common labour/work force.
5.     Common administration/work management.
6.     Common sales tax registration and assessment.
7.     Common Income-tax assessment.
8.     Any other factor as may be indicative of inter-linkage of the manufacturing process.
This is not an exhaustive list of indicators nor is each indicator necessary in each case. The Commissioner has to decide the issue case by case.”
On going through the aforesaid provisions, I find that the appellant is having registration certificate for plot no. 53/19 and premises no. 53/1 is the integral part of plot no. 53 both the units have been separated by a private road and not by public road. Therefore, the appellant is not required for separate registration of both the premises separately. In these circumstances, the appellant has complied with the condition of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and no separate registration is required. The ld. Commissioner (A) have only denied the registration on the premises that the amendment has been granted by Assistant Commissioner and not by the Commissioner of Central Excise. This cannot be the ground for rejection of amendment in registration certificate.
Decision:-In these circumstances, I hold that order of revocation of amendment in registration is contrary to law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

Comment:- If the premises are separated by a private road then a common registration for the units can be granted by Commissioner on case to case as per CBEC supplementary manual. But if once the registration is being provided even by the Assistant Commissioner, it cannot be revoked.

Prepared By-TUSHAR GUPTA

Comments

PJ/Case Law /2016-17/3287

Post a Comment

Query