TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued that goods are cleared after repair/reconditioning, etc. the activity does not amount to manufacture and, therefore, the appellant should have reversed the original credit taken - Held that:- Following the decision in case of MARUTI UDYOG (2002 (8) TMI 155 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI) The statement of facts made in the show-cause notice does not lead to any conclusion that the activity un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In some cases, the equipment brought back are not repairable and, therefore, they are completely dismantled and the useable parts are salvaged and again re-used in the manufacture of goods of the same kind and the unusable parts, which are negligible (approximately 10% as per the order-in-appeal) are cleared as scrap. 3. The department was of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Vs. CCE, New Delhi, reported in 2002 (146) ELT 427 (Tri-Del) wherein a question arose whether new motor vehicle assembled with the help of both new components and salvaged parts would amount to manufacture of a new motor vehicle or does not amount to repair under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was the rule pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efully considered the rival submissions. 6.1 From the details given in the show-cause notice nowhere it is coming out that the activity undertaken by the appellant is only repair of the equipment already supplied. On the other hand from the facts narrated in the show-cause notice what is coming out is that the returned equipment is dismantled and salvaged parts are reused in the manufacture of m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
