Newly manufactured excisable goods, not repaired old machinery, were held to have been removed without duty.

Seized machinery was found to be newly manufactured excisable goods removed without payment of duty, not merely old equipment shifted from another plant and repaired. The factual defence that the items were only old machines brought from the Mulund plant was rejected because the adjudicating authority found the appellant capable of manufacturing such machinery in its own workshop, and the private records described the goods as "new". With no effective rebuttal to those findings, the determination that duty had been evaded on newly manufactured goods was upheld and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized machinery and other goods were new excisable goods manufactured by the appellant and removed without payment of duty, or merely old machinery shifted from another plant and repaired or reconditioned.

Analysis: The appellant's explanation that the seized items were old machines brought from its Mulund plant and only repaired or reconditioned was rejected on facts. The adjudicating authority had examined the defence and found that the appellant possessed the capability to manufacture the machines in its own workshop. The appellant's private records also described the seized machines as "new". No effective rebuttal to these factual findings was offered in appeal.

Conclusion: The finding that the goods were manufactured new excisable goods and removed without duty was upheld, and the appeal failed.

---