1999 (3) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The issues in both cases are identical. We will refer to the facts in Appeal E/360/94. 2. The appellant, manufacturer of motor vehicles, cleared on payment of duty, a jeep on 19-2-1988. The jeep was sent back to the appellant on 7-11-1988 for repairs, and returned to the consignee, presumably after repairs on 18-11-1990 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... w jeep cleared at the relevant time. However, there is nothing to suggest that, when the jeep was cleared in 1991, it had undergone processes amounting to manufacture. If the repairs carried out on it did not amount to manufacture, no duty was payable. There being no finding that such repairs amounted to manufacture, the demand for duty is not sustainable. 4. Appeals allowed. Impugned orders set .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X