TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hankar, Member (T)]. The assessee received 12 consignments of copper rods. In each case, on receipt of the rods in its factory it filed a declaration in Form D 3 indicating the duty which it said had been paid on the consignments and the [gate] pass number stating that the rods were received for reconditioning. It cleared these goods from its factory without payment of duty. Notice was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive of the appellant says that they were sent back after subjecting the goods to various processes. It received 8 mm rods and sent them back and therefore there has been no manufacture. He relies for this purpose upon the decision of the Tribunal in CC v. J.G. Glass Ltd. - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 248 and Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. v. CCE - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 329. 4. He says that the notice has been i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted these goods to be removed without payment of duty if not subjected to any process amounting to manufacture. Therefore she says the two provisions doubted in each other. Sub-rule (1) provides permission to bringing excisable goods in the factory and sub-rule (2) provides that goods after being brought in are subjected to a process, amounting to manufacture which would have to be cleared on paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were not cleared as inputs under Rule 157G. 6. We do not think it necessary to consider the question of whether the decision of the Tribunal in CC v. JG Glass requires reconsideration or not. It was held in that decision that remaking of returned excisable goods resulting in emergence once again of the identical kind of goods would not be manufacture within the meaning of Rule 173H. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
