Registration can not be revoked without hearing Assessee

By | June 24, 2016


Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Udaipur


Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota



MAY  25, 2016

Ajay Shukla for the Appellant.



1. By this appeal, challenge is made to the order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Learned counsel submits that by playing fraud by the assessee, registration of new unit was sought while earlier registration was granted for two other units. After knowing about the fraud committed by the respondent assessee, a letter was issued on 27.11.2013 as annexure-1 for revocation of the registration of Central Excise dated 6.9.2013. It was challenged by the non-appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur has allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order revoking registration. The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal has been dismissed in ignorance of the fact that the respondent assessee was not entitled to get common registration for Mangalam Cement Limited. The authorities thus revoked the order of registration granted earlier to the assessee.

3. It is stated that learned Tribunal refused to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that an opportunity of hearing was not given to the assessee before passing the order of revocation of common registration. The aforesaid was in ignorance of the fact that on an application submitted by the assessee prior to revocation of common registration, assessee was called for hearing. In view of above, order of the Tribunal needs interference as opportunity of hearing was given though prior to the letter dated 27.11.2013. It is more so when prior to approaching the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had approached this court by maintaining a writ petition. An interim order was passed therein but it was due to suppression of certain facts from the court. The writ petition was, however, dismissed as withdrawn. It was subsequent to favourable order by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. In any case, the court should cause interference in the order of the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) taking into consideration the fraud by the assessee.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6. The perusal of the order under challenge reveals that on an application fled by the assessee, registration for excise was given on 6.9.2013. The registration aforesaid was revoked vide order dated dated 27.11.2013. It was challenged by the assessee before this court, however, taking note of availability of alternative remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals), an appeal was also filed. The appeal was allowed as the revocation of common registration was without following principles of natural justice and also not in consonance to the grounds of revocation. The learned Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

7. We find that while the earlier writ petition was filed by the assessee, it was without taking remedy before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was thus filed and, finding an order of revocation dated 27.11.2013 to be in violation of principles of natural justice, it was interfered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been upheld by the Tribunal.

8. We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. A right was accrued with registration in favour of the assessee. If common registration was to be revoked, nobody prevented the revenue to pass proper order by giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The revenue cannot pass unilateral order without hearing other party. It is more so when allegations have been made for playing fraud on the department.

9. In view of above, we do not find any substance in the appeal for challenge to the order of the Tribunal so as the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The revenue would, however, be not precluded to take action in the matter but it would be after following principles of natural justice and as per the provisions of law.

Leave a Reply