9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the request/permission for use of the additional unit and there has also been a declaration purportedly in terms of N/N. 214/1986 which is also on record with the Revenue and issuing a show-cause notice on 20.12.2013 i.e. nearly after 7 years therefore could not be viewed as an act of suppression - also apart from alleging mere suppression the authorities have not pointed out any positive action/inaction, conscious or otherwise, on the part of the appellant. The appeal is therefore allowed on the limitation/technical ground alone. - E/20070/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21332 / 2018 - Dated:- 7-9-2018 - HON'BLE SHRI. P. DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri H.Y. Raju, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K.B. Nanaiah, AR For the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that it would be receiving back the goods within six months which would be cleared on payment of duty. The officers from Preventive unit conducted investigation and on verification of the appellant s record, it was alleged by them that Unit-II was not registered under Central Excise Act nor had the appellant obtained permission for storing its inputs in the said unit. The appellant had reversed the entire service tax of input service received in its Unit-II at the insistence of the Preventive officers along with interest which fact was communicated to the Revenue vide letter dated 16.07.2012. Show-cause notice was issued by the Revenue only on 20.12.2013 alleging that Unit-II was not registered nor had it obtained pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the records particularly the explanation filed by the appellant in response to show-cause notice, that the appellant has been canvassing before the authorities below that the use of additional premises/Unit-II was within the knowledge of the Department. The reply to show-cause notice has been placed from page 42 onwards of the appeal memo and at page 44 paragraph 6, the appellant has reiterated the fact of intimation, as early as on 11.12.2006, as to the request/permission to remove excisable goods from the said unit. From a perusal of Order-in-Original, I find that there is no rejection by the Revenue on the above request of the appellant, nor has the adjudicating authority suspected the veracity of the above letter (11.12.2006). Again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
