TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Authorities. Subsequently, the appellant-revenue issued Notification No. 20/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-9-2006 which incorporated conditions and stipulations regarding consent for being administered under the Large Taxpayer Unit at Delhi. After more than two years, Chief Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Unit accepted the application and thereupon, the respondent-assessee was to be assessed in the said unit. In the meanwhile, it appears that the respondent-assessee had set up three new units after the initial application was filed on 17-3-2006. In these circumstances, a fresh list of the units was circulated and furnished to the appellant i.e. the Commissioner, Large Taxpayer Unit on 17-7-2009. 2. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its which started operating after the submission of the consent letters for its other units. The action of the Chief Commissioner of LTU may appear correct in holding that these three units at Nasik, Kanchipuram and Singur do not form a part of LTU for want of consent letter from the Petitioner and the acceptance to these three units to operate as a part of LTU; however, the fact of some transactions of all the units and intimation to LTU by the Petitioner cannot be over looked but has vital bearing over the issue. For instance earlier the Petitioner has requested the transfer of the credit from Kanchipuram to other units. So also sought permission of LTU, New Delhi for clearing vehicles containing scrap from Nasik unit. By letter dated 27-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....administered by the LTU Delhi. It is only when the C.B.E. & C. opined that specific consent/acceptance letter is necessary, show cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner to deny the benefit of LTU to the unit set up after submitting the initial consent letter. It is not the case of the revenue that the subsequently set up units are not eligible to be administered by the LTU. The only grievance is that specific letter of consent has not been submitted in respect of the newly established units till 9-9-2010. In our opinion, the lapse, if any, being only technical and the LTU policy itself provides that the Chief Commissioner/Commissioner, LTU must play a pro active role in the administration of LTU and requires them to solve the problem....