De-registration hiccups
M/S Akasha Syncotex Ltd. closed down their business and applied for cancellation of their CE registration and that is a different story which we come to later .
M/s Monomer Chemical Inds. was interested in conducting manufacturing operations from the said premises and, therefore, entered into a purchase agreement with M/s. Akasha Syncotex Ltd . and with due permission from MIDC, the factory premises got leased out in the name of M/s Monomer Chemical Inds.
When M/s Monomer Chemical Inds. sought CE registration from the CE authorities, a SCN came to be issued proposing denial of the same. The original authority held in favour of M/s Monomer Chemical Inds. but in Revenue appeal, the Commissioner (A) set aside the order saying that the previous lessee M/s Akasha Syncotex Ltd. had dues pending against them.
M/s Monomer Chemical Inds. took the matter to the CESTAT and the Bench by relying upon the decision in PMS Exports P. Ltd. - 2013-TIOL-823-CESTAT-AHM (which in turn relied on the decision in Tata Metaliks Ltd. - ) set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. We reported this decision as 2015-TIOL-04-CESTAT-MUM.
In the meantime, the case of M/s Akasha Syncotex Ltd. had also begun its journey.
Their application for de-registration was accepted by the original authority but in Revenue appeal, the same Commissioner (A), by an order passed on the same date, set aside the order-in-original and allowed the Revenue appeal.
M/s Akasha Syncotex Ltd. also had filed appeal before the CESTAT arguing that they have complied with the procedure prescribed for surrender of registration certificate as mandated by notification ; that as on date no confirmed demand is pending against the appellant; that only a SCN has been issued which is pending adjudication; therefore, factory premises was sold to another company and in separate proceedings, the buyer company has been issued new registration certificate after the Tribunal intervened 2015-TIOL-04-CESTAT-MUM; that at one time same premises cannot remain registered in the name of two persons, therefore, once registration in the name of buyer company M/s. Monomer Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd has been issued, then registration of appellant will not survive.
The CESTAT decided the appeal of M/s Akasha Syncotex Ltd. recently and while allowing their appeal inter alia observed –
"It is a national loss to stop production in any factory premises. The law cannot be such by which production in this country can be suspended for any reason."