https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112557 An assessee seeking permission to share supervision and establishment charges was entitled to the benefit from the date of its proper application where the competent authority did not pass a reasoned order rejecting the request. The department's reliance on a bare communication from an Assistant Commissioner could not substitute for a lawful speaking decision, particularly when a similarly placed unit had already been allowed the same benefit. On those facts, restricting permission to prospective effect had no valid basis, and the demand founded on that approach was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:08:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112557 An assessee seeking permission to share supervision and establishment charges was entitled to the benefit from the date of its proper application where the competent authority did not pass a reasoned order rejecting the request. The department's reliance on a bare communication from an Assistant Commissioner could not substitute for a lawful speaking decision, particularly when a similarly placed unit had already been allowed the same benefit. On those facts, restricting permission to prospective effect had no valid basis, and the demand founded on that approach was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112557