Identity of repaired goods under excise law remains unchanged when essential character survives alteration, defeating fresh duty liability.

Excise duty was held not to arise on a machine cleared after repair or modification where its essential identity remained unchanged. The machine had been received back under D-3 declaration and retained the same model and serial number, while the altered features did not change its basic character as a punch press machine. Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was read as not requiring repaired or reconditioned goods to be returned only to the original person from whom they were received. The Revenue's contention that a different machine had come into existence was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether excise duty was payable on a machine cleared after it was received back for repair or modification under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the machine sent out after alteration ceased to be the same goods.

Analysis: The machine had originally been cleared on payment of duty, later received back under D-3 declaration, and the assessee sought extension of time to retain it in the factory. The record showed that the model number and serial number of the machine sold after repair remained the same, while the different numbers relied upon by the Revenue were purchase order numbers. Removal of certain features did not alter the basic character of the machine, which continued to remain a punch press machine. The proviso to Rule 173H did not require that goods repaired or reconditioned must be sent back only to the same person from whom they were received.

Conclusion: Excise duty was not payable on the clearance of the machine after repair, and the Revenue's objection that a different machine had come into existence was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods received back for repair or reconditioning retain their identity if their essential character remains unchanged, and Rule 173H does not require re-clearance only to the original consignee.

---