2003 (11) TMI 521 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether duty of excise is payable on machines received back and cleared after repair.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of duty on machines received back and cleared after repair
The appeal questioned the duty liability on machines returned for repair and then cleared. The Appellant argued that the machines were returned by the customer due to functionality issues, and after modifications, they were cleared to another customer without duty payment under Rule 173H. The Appellant contended that the machine's model number change did not signify a new machine, as it was tailored to suit the second customer's requirements. The Advocate highlighted that the machine's essential features remained the same, and the change in model number was due to the selling agent's internal numbering system. The Departmental Representative argued that significant technical features were removed, creating a distinct product attracting excise duty. However, the Tribunal noted that the machine's model number and serial number remained consistent, indicating the same machine was cleared after modifications. The Tribunal agreed that the removal of certain features did not alter the fundamental nature of the machine, which was still a Punch Press machine. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that Rule 173H did not mandate returning repaired goods to the original consignee, supporting the Appellant's position. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This judgment clarifies the duty liability on machines returned for repair and subsequently cleared, emphasizing that changes in model number do not necessarily indicate a new product subject to excise duty. It also interprets Rule 173H regarding the requirement to return repaired goods to the original consignee, providing essential guidance on excise duty implications in such scenarios.