2018 (7) TMI 849

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the second premises and informed the same to the Department vide letter dated 06.01.2003. There was no response from the Department. Later, the Department issued later dated 27.04.2006 asking them to clarify whether both the units are separated by a road and whether separate registration for these units are required. To this, the appellant had replied, stating that although the manufacturing activities in both the units are interlinked and interconnected, finished products are removed from unit No. 44 only. They were also paying central excise duty on finished products. The said letter was issued in 09.05.2006. Though several audits were conducted, later for the audit in 2014 an objection was raised stating that credit availed on capital g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Door No. 34. It was also stated by them that these premises are separated by a road within the industrial Estate area. The Department, thereafter, has requested for clarification only after two years, to which the appellant had replied. The audit objection in respect of issues under consideration was raised only after eight years, to which the appellant had filed a detailed reply stating that the manufacturing activity in both the units are interlinked and interconnected and that the finished products are removed from unit No. 44 by payment of excise duty. Even then, the Show Cause Notice has been issued after two years invoking extended period and alleging suppression of facts; that the appellant has been diligent in disclosing all facts a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the second unit, i.e. Unit No. 34, is not eligible for credit to the tune of Rs. 7,19,581/-. The appellant has given a detailed reply to the audit objections. Still, no Show Cause Notice was given during the normal period after audit objections. The Department has again taken two years to issue the Show Cause Notice. The lower authority dropped the demand in respect of two invoices to the tune of Rs. 71,796/- on the ground of limitation. There is no positive act or any iota of evidence brought out to show suppression of facts on the part of the appellant with intention to evade payment of duty. The appellant has, vide letter dated 06.01.2003 ,informed of the shifting of capital goods. In such circumstances I am of the view that the deman....