9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1981. After adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order dated 24-8-1982 confirmed the demand. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 3-3-1983. This order was a consolidated order in respect of two appeals by the present respondents. The present appeal is against the said order so far as it related to the order of Assistant Collector dated 24-8-1982 mentioned above. 2. The respondents have intimated by letter dated 24-9-1987 that they should not be appearing in person. None has appeared on their behalf during the hearing. We have perused records and heard Shri K.S. Sachar, JDR for the department. 3. As earlier mentioned, the impugned order in appeal dealt with, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this order the present appeal does not subsist. They may not be correct in this assumption since the order dated 6-8-1984 was not in appeal against the present impugned order. 5. Rule 173-H of the Central Excise Rules provides for retention or re-entry of duty paid goods in the factory or warehouse. Sub-rule (2) reads that the goods brought into a factory in accordance with sub-rule (1) may, if not subjected to any-process amounting to manufacture, be removed from the factory without payment of duty. The question, therefore, is whether in the present instance the reconditioning-of the dies amounted to manufacture. The case for the respondent is that the goods were dies when brought in for reconditioning and continued to be dies even after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector of Central Excise v. Lathia Industrial Supply Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (1985 Vol22-E.L.T. 837). The issue there was whether the recoating and re-rubberising of old and used rubberised rollers would amount to manufacture. The Tribunal held against the assessee. But the said judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court as reported in 1987 Vol 29 E.L.T. 751. In doing so, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the department itself had later accepted the position that such rubberising and re-lining of old and used vessels would not amount to manufacture. Another decision which could also be looked into with advantage is the case of Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. (1985 Vol 26 E.L.T. 353). In an elaborate judgment the Tribunal he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
