TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he units of the petitioner since inception - Decided in the favour of tje asssessee - 9450/2010 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2011 - J.P.DEVADHAR, MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. Mr.V.Sridharan a/w Mr.Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal for Petitioner Mr. A.S.Rao a/w Mr.S.D.Bhosale for respondents J U D G M E N T (Per Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) Rule , returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 By way of this Petition the petitioner company seeks direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the letters dated 14/10/2009 and 13/8/2010 as well as show cause notice dated 4/2/2010 issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (L.T.U.) ,respondent no.5, holding that three manufacturing units and one trading unit of the petitioner located at Nasik , Kanchipuram and Singur are not covered under Large Tax Payer s Unit ( for short LTU) scheme . The petitioner further seeks declaration that these three units and the trading units of the petitioner are covered by LTU . 3 Before dealing with the submissions of learned counsel of both the sides it is necessary to state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acceptance was given. Interregnum the petitioner set up more units at Kanchipuram in the State of Tamil Nadu , Nasik in the State of Maharashtra and at Singur ,in the State of West Bengal. Thus, the petitioner as on 2/6/2008 was running nine manufacturing units and one trading unit , all registered with the respective jurisdictional central excise authorities. The manufacturing unit behind CEAT company at Satpur ,Nasik Industrial Estate had already been functioning . It was understood that all the manufacturing and trading units came under LTU as a single entity .The petitioner was fallowing prescribed procedure for payment of tax and also file monthly returns with the proper officers of the LTU. On 14/10/2009 the petitioner received letter from Chief Commissioner LTU,Delhi regarding three manufacturing units and one trading unit which came into existence of which the details were not furnished by the petitioner and they were not registered. The Commissioner of Central Excise,LTU by way of show cause notice dated 17/12/2009 sought to disallow the total credit on the ground that the unit at Kanchipuram and Nasik were not mentioned in the original consent form filed by the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so registered with their jurisdictional authorities, but these new units should be deemed to be a part of LTU from the original date of acceptance. He argued that refusing new units to be a part of LTU is a mere technicality and the Chief Commissioner of LTU ought to have used his discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of the object for which the facility is provided . To support his contentions he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mangalore Cehmicals and Fertillizers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 21. 7 Mr.Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in reply submitted that the petitioners have failed in supplying all the details about opening of new units at Nasik ,Kanchipuram , Singur . It was necessary for the petitioner to communicate the details about working of these three units to the Chief Commissioner of LTU. The consent was obtained for seven units and therefore, the acceptance was also given for those units which were mentioned in the consent letter. The names and the details of these three units were not mentioned and furnished to the Chief Commissioner of LTU so the respondents have taken a correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise and Service Tax LTU ,New Delhi. 9 Thus, the petitioner has intimated about the new units and the acceptance letter by the respondent in respect of Nasik unit puts the petitioner on a stronger footing . Once the respondent has accepted such communication and transaction of new units then the department cannot somersault and say that the revenue department was not aware of functioning of three new units of the petitioner, who is enjoying the facility of LTU for other units. It is made amply clear that the petitioner should have sent a separate consent letter of intimation about functioning of three units and should have obtained additional acceptance for these three new units to form a part of LTU. However, this is not an illegality so as to refuse the facility of LTU to the petitioners for new three units. Opening of three units appears to be a continuous process of the development of the business of the petitioner and LTU facility is made available in India as referred in the speech of the Finance Minister in the year 2005 as a benevolent scheme. Therefore,though there is a procedural flaw on the part of the petitioners this irregularity is curable in the interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
