MANIBHADRA PROCESSORS Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, has basically come before this Court to seek direction against the respondents to dispose of its application dated 23rd December, 2003 seeking registration of its industrial unit situate at Plot No. 31, M. I. D. C. Industrial unit, Ambernath, District Thane. However, during the pendency of this petition, by an order dated 19. 2. 2004 petitioners' request for registration came to be rejected. Petitioner now seeks to challenge the order dated 19. 2. 2004 Incorporated at Ex. H. FACTS: the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :

(2.) ON 7. 11. 2003 petitioner claims to have established a manufacturing unit to process cotton/manmade fabrics at the factory premises referred to hereinabove. On 23rd December, 2003, petitioner applied to the Central Excise department in the prescribed form to register its industrial unit under r. 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 formed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' and 'rules' for short ). The said application came to be rejected by an order dated 19. 2. 2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division-IV, Kalyan, holding that the earlier holder of the registration Certificate M/s. Jagruti Textile Processors have not paid their outstanding excise dues to the extent of Rs. 8. 23 lacs and failed to surrender their registration certificate with respect to the same factory premises as such no other unit in the same premises can be registered under the rules unless registration is de-registered or cancelled or surrendered by such registrant and all excise dues are cleared. The said order dated 19. 2. 2004 is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition filed under art. 226 of the Constitution of india. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS :

(3.) SHRI Kanuga, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the grounds disclosed for rejection in the order dated 19. 2. 2004 refusing to grant registration are based on extraneous consideration. In his submission, if the previous registrant has not only stopped its business but closed down its industrial unit and vacated the premises as such questions of continuing of registration becomes redundant even though such unit may not have surrendered registration certificate. The other ground that the previous registrant has not paid excise dues is also irrelevant so far as petitioner is concerned. According to him, both the grounds are unsustainable as such impugned order is liable to be set aside and appropriate writ or direction is liable to be issued to the respondents directing them to issue registration certificate forthwith.