TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 452
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Today when the matter came up for hearing Shri H.Y Raju, advocate appeared for the assessee and Shri K.B. Nanaiah, learned DR appeared for the Revenue. The contentions of the learned advocate for the assessee could be broadly summarized as under: The appellant manufactures sheet metal products and is registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise Department. The goods manufactured are chargeable to duty and hence the appellant is availing cenvat credit of duty paid on all inputs and capital goods and also service tax paid on all input services. The appellant took on lease an additional premises as it was facing space constraints and vide letter dated 11.12.2006 intimated the Department with a request to permit them to remove excisa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant and also hearing, the adjudicating authority vide an Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2015 confirmed the proposals in the show-cause notice against which the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Appeals-II Bangalore where the same came to be rejected. 2. The learned advocate also relied upon the decision of this Bench in the case of Expert Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Cus. & ST, Bangalore-I reported in 2015 (39) S.T.R. 465 (Tri.-Bang.) in his support. 3. Per contra, learned DR supported the findings of the authorities below. He also relied upon paragraph Nos. 9 to 10 of the impugned order to highlight that Unit No. II was never registered with the Central Excise Department nor it had obtained permission n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he above, when the Revenue was within the knowledge as early as in 2006 as to the existence of the additional unit along with request for registration/permission, the registration/permission for which having not been refused in writing, the Revenue cannot claim ignorance of such request and declaration. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also not disputed the existence of request/permission and declaration (supra) but has only agreed with the findings of the original authority in upholding the same. 6. From the above material facts, I find that the Revenue has not made out a case for invoking extended period of limitation, since primarily it was within the Revenue's knowledge, right from 11.12.2006, as to the request/permission for use of the....