Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd (CESTAT Chennai)
The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Vs Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd case brought before the CESTAT Chennai involves an issue of the revocation of Central Excise registration. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd, the respondent, had obtained Central Excise registration as a dealer but was not operating a godown, leading the Department to revoke its registration.
Analysis: The Department claimed that the respondent was not adhering to the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as they did not maintain a godown for storing the imported coal. The respondent’s appeal against the original decision to revoke the Central Excise registration was successful, which prompted the Department to file an appeal. However, the tribunal deemed the appeal infructuous in the current scenario as the country had transitioned to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Brief facts are that the respondent was engaged in import of coal and had obtained Central Excise registration as a dealer. The respondent did not have a godown and the coal was transported to the buyers directly from the Port. Department was of the view that as the respondent did not have a godown sufficient to store bulk quantity of imported coal thereby had not followed the procedures stipulated in provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent alleging that the respondent does not have a godown in Chennai and therefore cannot be registered as a dealer. After due process of law, the original authority order for revocation of the Central Excise registration. Against this, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Against such order, the department has filed the present appeal.
2. Ld A.R Shri N. Sathya Narayanan reiterated the grounds of appeal.
3. Heard both sides.
4. After hearing the parties, we find that the appeal has become infructuous. The country has moved on to the GST regime. If the department appeal is to be allowed so as to sustain the cancellation of Central Excise registration it would be purposeless and meaningless. We find that there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
