https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90079 Notification No. 77/85-C.E. was applied unit-wise, so capital investment in separate industrial units could not be clubbed merely because the same manufacturer operated both. The record treated the Lathikata unit and the temporary Angul contract-work unit as distinct units, and the investment at each was found to be within the exemption limit. At the same time, the clearances from both units were required to be clubbed for determining any duty liability. The matter was remanded for de novo computation of duty, if any, and for decision on open issues including limitation. en-us Fri, 15 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:44:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90079 Notification No. 77/85-C.E. was applied unit-wise, so capital investment in separate industrial units could not be clubbed merely because the same manufacturer operated both. The record treated the Lathikata unit and the temporary Angul contract-work unit as distinct units, and the investment at each was found to be within the exemption limit. At the same time, the clearances from both units were required to be clubbed for determining any duty liability. The matter was remanded for de novo computation of duty, if any, and for decision on open issues including limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90079