2008 (7) TMI 668

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aged in the manufacture of various products with or without brand name "condequip" falling under Chapter Headings 84, 87 and 72 of CETA, 1985. The respondents were issued a show cause notice dated 9-10-2001 alleging that they have contravened provisions of Rule 173B, 9(1) and Notification No. 9/2000 dated 1-3-2000 & 47/2000 dated 1-9-2000 as they had suppressed the facts that they are having another unit by the same name situated at Goa. The said show cause notice was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and adjudicating authority accepted the contention raised by the respondent and dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice. Aggrieved by such dropping of proceedings, Revenue preferred an appeal before the learned Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nces of these units is not sustainable. What is sustainable is the question of jurisdiction for raising of demand and collection of duties from the two unit by the competent authorities at Mumbai and Goa respectively. After the aggregate value of the clearances, taken together for these units, exceed the slab exemption provided, both units shall be liable to discharge Central Excise duties at normal rates. Also, the claim of the appellant that only unit at Mumbai is availing the facility of modvat credit would not make any difference on the question of discharge of duties at the slab rates prescribed under the said Notification, modvat benefit would be required to be regulated separately by the unit at Mumbai and Goa, if so availed, in acco....