COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. PRERNA STRIPS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS stay application is filed by the Revenue against order in appeal dated 19th June, 2006 that set aside the order in original dated 30th January, 2006.

(2.) THE relevant fact that arise for consideration are respondent in this case filed an application for registration with the authorities on 28 -7 -2005. The said registration application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Derabassi Division on the ground that the respondent had purchased the site in which M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. were operating and the said M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. has not discharged their duty liability towards the Central Excise demand and hence the licence surrender application of M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. was rejected. It was also indicated in the rejection letter that since the licence of M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. was not cancelled, a new licence cannot be issued to the respondent from the same premises. Against such order, the respondent filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 31 -10 -05 set aside the order rejecting the application for issuance of Central Excisel Registration Certificate. The adjudicating authority on his own vide order in original dated 30th June, 2006 again rejected the application for registration by a speaking order. The respondent preferred second appeal against the order in original dated 30th January, 2006 which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by setting aside the order in original. Hence this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED DR submits that the Central Excise duty dues from the earlier manufacturer i.e. M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. runs in crores, if Central Excise registration is granted to the current respondent, there will be a transfer of property in the name of current respondent, which would obstruct the recovery of the duties from M/s. Majestic Metalliks Ltd. In view of this, the adjudicating authority has correctly rejected the registration application of the respondent as no two licencee can function from the same premises.