TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T)]. - These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 79 and 80 both dt. 27-2-2002 by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh setting aside the Order-in-Original on appeal by the Department. The appellants have manufactured and supplied Digital Telephone Switching System to DOT which is used as the main equipment in telephone exchanges. They have also supplied bought out i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder-in-Appeal, no further action has been taken by the original adjudicating authority. However, the ld. Authorised Representative for the appellant produced copies of the show cause notices issued by the jurisdictional Commissioners, Goa, Mumbai-I, Mumbai-II and Mumbai-VI on the same issue in respect of telephone exchange items supplied by the appellant at different locations falling within the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ites of DOT falling in the jurisdiction of other Commissionerates. 4. Perusal of the relevant contract document, invoices, etc., reveals that the appellants had a contract to supply complete telephone exchanges but there is a detailed list of items, along with prices of these items and quantity which were required to be supplied under the main contract. It is also not in dispute that the switchin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g payment of duty on the entire value of the telephone exchange including the value of bought out items. Whether the telephone exchanges have been manufactured at different sites of DOT, is a separate issue which requires to be decided by the common adjudicator in respect of separate SCNs issued by the Commissioners of Goa and Mumbai-I, II and III. The appellants were however, required to pay duty....