ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
1. The Revenue challenges the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Guwahati, setting aside the Order of the Assistant Commissioner of revocation of Registration Certificate, granted to the respondent company herein. The Revenue has contended that the Registration Certificate was rightly cancelled for breach of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 174 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944, which stipulates that where a registered person transfers his business to another person, the transferee shall obtain a fresh certificate.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s Order only on the ground that after termination of the Lease Deed, the assessees, M/s. Ashok Paper Mills (Assam) Ltd., challenged before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bongaigaon, stating that the Unit was illegally taken over by the lessor. However, we are in agreement with the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that subsequent to the termination of the Lease Deed and on cessation of production, the respondents should have surrendered the Registration Certificate and should have sought de-registration, matter that such termination was challenged. The case-law relied upon by the respondents herein, namely the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Maheswary Iron & Steel Supply Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-II reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 667 (Tribunal), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the contravention alleged was in terms of Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and not Rule 174 relating to Registration Certificate, which is the contravention alleged in the present case. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly applied the Notification No. 35/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, providing – “A registration certificate granted under Rule 174, may be revoked or suspended by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, if the holder of such certificate or any person in his employment is found to have committed breach of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder….”
3. In the result, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal.