SEYA INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these proceedings the Petitioners have sought to impugn the correctness of an order dated 30 March 2012 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise revoking a certificate of registration under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The name of the First Petitioner was changed from Sriman Organic Chemical Industries Limited to Seya Industries Limited with effect from 6 June 2011 pursuant to which a fresh certificate of incorporation has been issued by the Registrar of Companies. In 1993 a Central Excise registration was issued in the name of Sriman Organic Chemical Industries Limited as it was previously known. On 28 July 2009 a fresh registration number is stated to have been allotted on account of a new PAN based registration provision. On 11 November 2011 the First Petitioner made an application on line, in view of the change in the name of the company for updating the records. On 13 December 2011 a fresh Central Excise Registration Certificate was received by the Petitioners, dated 21 November 2011 with the same Central Excise registration as before. A notice to show cause was issued by the Assistant Commissioner to the Petitioner for the revocation of the registration certificate which resulted in the impugned order. The Assistant Commissioner in the impugned order has proceeded on the basis that Sriman Organic Chemical Industries Limited and the First Petitioner are one and the same entity under the same management. The registration certificate, however, appears to have been revoked on the ground that there are outstanding dues which are still to be recovered. The mere change in the name of the company cannot possibly affect the position of the Central Excise dues or the liability of the company to pay those dues. The Central Excise Authorities would be at liberty to take recourse to all procedures and remedies available in law for the recovery of the outstanding dues. However, we find there is no basis or justification to revoke the Central Excise Registration merely because the name of the company has been changed to the present name as noted above. Since the basis of the revocation is ex facie flawed and does not require any detailed investigation, we have not considered it necessary to relegate the Petitioner to the remedy of an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals). We accordingly set aside the order of revocation passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 30 March 2012. However, we clarify that this would not preclude the Central Excise Authorities from taking recourse to such provisions of law as are available, for the recovery of the outstanding dues, if any. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

(2.) There shall be no order as to costs.