TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is a duty demand of over Rs. 12.7 crores under two orders-in- original No. 1/04 to 7/04, dated 24-2-04. These demands are in respect of cars brought back to the appellant's factory for the purpose of repair/re-making. Some of the cars had originally been cleared for export while others were cleared for domestic consumption. Upon their return, the cars were subjected to repairs/re-making and thereafter, either exported or sold in the domestic market. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has pointed out that whenever the goods were cleared after repair/re-making for domestic consumption, the appellants had discharged the duty. Under the impugned orders, duty demands have been confirmed in respect of cars cleared for export (and refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as contended that the Commissioner's order was legally correct and that there was no irregularity involved in separating claims under Rules 173L and 173H for the purposes of decision. 6. The duty demand in regard to goods originally cleared for domestic consumption which had been returned for repair/re-making had come up before this Tribunal earlier in appeal filed by this appellants and we had disposed of that appeal under Final Order No. 332-333/-02 in Appeal No. 2524/01 [2002 (146) E.L.T. 427 (Tribunal)]. We had specifically held that the appellants are entitled to benefit under Rule 173L and had remanded the case to the lower authorities for reconsideration in the light of provisions of that Rule. It is evident that the Commissioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturned. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 173M are intended clearly to cover situations like the present appellants. Therefore, this demand is not maintainable. 8. With regard to the third demand in respect of 169 cars also, the duty demand is clearly unwarranted. Rule 49 makes it clear that duty is chargeable only on the removal of the goods from the factory or approved place of storage. Rule therefore, permits the manufacturer to carry out whatever processes are required to make the goods marketable. In the present case, repair of cars damaged during the process of manufacture came within the scope of the rule. No dispute is raised that the cars were not damaged or that the appellant is using this as a cover for making other cars. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
