TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (2) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that (i) M/s. Moped Assembly and Sheet Metal Works, (ii) M/s. Moped Machine Shop, and (iii) M/s. Moped Tool Room, were not distinct or separate entities and were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 (as amended). He demanded the Central Excise Duty of Rs. 3,06,235.36. On appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, had set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras. In his order, he had held as under : "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned consultant. I find that the entire order has been issued on wrong presumptions without any verifications of the goods produced or sold by the appellants. There is no evidence that for the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter on merits on the basis of facts on record and after hearing the representative of the Department. 3. Under Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980, the goods falling under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff were exempted from the payment of Central Excise Duty subject to the conditions as laid down in that notification. One of the conditions was that the investment in plant & machinery in the industrial unit in which the goods falling under Item No. 68 were produced had not exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs. We find that in the grounds of appeal, the Revenue had stated as under : "1(a) Eligibility of Small Scale Exemption. - The Assistant Collector has held that the party is not eligible for the small scale exemption a....