2010 (3) TMI 645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....]. - This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 63/CE/CHD/2008 dated 21-1-2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent received capital goods in their factory at Parwanoo, Dist. Solan unit during the period February, 1996 to July, 1996 and December, 1996 and took Modvat credit under Rules 57Q. The respondent coul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... confirmed the demand of differential duty amounting to Rs. 1,65,544/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty. Commissioner (Appeals), on appeal by the party following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Goa v. Polyset Plastics Ltd. reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 577 (Tri.-Mum.) allowed the appeal of the party. Hence, the department is in appeal. 4. Learned DR submits....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f their units of the same manufacturer to their other unit i.e. of the same manufacturer. In the given circumstances, there is no jurisdiction to treat the capital goods as if manufactured in their Parwanoo unit and he seeks to upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5.2 Alternatively, he also submits that since the removal from their Parwanoo unit to the Ghaziabad unit was duly intimated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1046 (Tri.-Del). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. Undisputedly, the respondent is a legal entity, having more than one unit at different locations. The capital goods procured by one unit stands used by the second unit though after a gap of few years. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have removed the capital goods after intimation to the Department as....