1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA EXCISE APPEAL NOS. 32 AND 29 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Central Excise ... Appellant versus M/s. Betts India Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for the Appellant. Mr. Bharat Raichandari and Ms. Priyanka Kamat, Advocates for the Respondent. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 6TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.:- These appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Order of the Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai) disposing of two appeals calling in question legality of common order passed by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel for the Appellant in all fairness submits that the issue involved in these appeals which is formulated as a substantial question of law at serial no.(c) has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the Supreme Court in a case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. MDS Switchgear 2 Ltd.(2008(229) E.L.T. 485(S.C.)). The said Judgment is pointed out with a view to bring home a position in law which reads thus:- “A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit”. 2. Similar is the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, on the own showing of the learned Counsel for the Appellant no interference with the impugned Order is called for. In the result, the appeals stand dismissed. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD